The church’s position is that, although “a few heretical sects in the first centuries, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to women: this innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers who considered it as unacceptable in the Church.”Archeologists have found frescos in Roman catacombs dating from the first century to the fourth century depicting women giving the Eucharist, receiving ordination from a bishop, and dressed in liturgical vestments.
He may have, indeed, intended women to carry on and lead such rituals as it looks as though they did in the first several centuries…but somewhere along the way, someone changed this…
That fresco you mention **is not that of a woman receiving ordination. **In some families, the children want the daddy more in this way…the father has more of the bond. It depends on the person.
It’s not about being fair.
At the same time…there’s nothing Jesus did that demanded a “male” body. He didn’t have sex and procreate, for example. So there was nothing he did physically that specifically needed male secondary sex characteristics.
He never explained why, did he? I don’t think so.
It could have been that at that time, the men were stronger and safer to do the traveling around…and it was dangerous…and he was worried people would not listen to a woman. After all, apostle Paul was the one who said women shouldn’t even talk in church, right?
But none of these issues are a factor anymore.
Archeologists have found frescos in Roman catacombs dating from the first century to the fourth century depicting women giving the Eucharist, receiving ordination from a bishop, and dressed in liturgical vestments.
He may have, indeed, intended women to carry on and lead such rituals as it looks as though they did in the first several centuries…but somewhere along the way, someone changed this…
.
Pope John Paul II declared this to be held as definitive Church teaching, and Pope Benedict reinforced it.Could you show us where God has told us this?
I’m sure you’d agree, though, that the Bible points quite clearly to the Trinity. Not necessarily as was dogmatically defined in the early councils - there’s no language of mia ousia, treis hypostasies - but we can see the Trinity at work in Scripture!Pope John Paul II declared this to be held as definitive Church teaching, and Pope Benedict reinforced it.
Did God ‘specifically’ tell us that, “Oh hai people. This is God the Father, here. Jesus is God the Son and the Holy Spirit–that dove over there–He is God the Spirit. We are three Divine Persons in One God.”
No, He did not. You won’t find the word "Trinity’ in the Bible, and it was the CHURCH which through the guidance of the Holy Spirit determined the mystery of the Trinity and taught it.
Likewise, the Eucharist. Jesus offered the bread and the wine as His Body and Blood, and asked us to “do this in remembrance of Him.” Did He come right out and say, “OK, people, the ONLY way to do this is in Mass, and BTW, the ONLY things to be used are wheat bread and grape wine, and oh yeah, “This is My Body” isn’t just figurative, I am REALLY PRESENT but under the ‘accidents’ of bread and wine”. . .
Either you trust that the Magisterium, the 'teachings of the Church, are authentic teachings instituted by God, and ‘proclaimed’ through the Church (IOW, we don’t ‘make up stuff’, we have had truth revealed by God and are ‘led’ by the Holy Spirit). . .
or you don’t.
If you don’t, then there is nothing I could say that you won’t counter with, “but it COULD have been corrupted. It COULD have been changed. We can’t be SURE it happened the way you say. …” because you don’t really trust God.
That seems a dangerous line of reasoning. By the same logic, if the Church is the bride then only women can be Christians, because men can’t be brides…I didnt see in this thread the nature of a sacrament and the natural resemblance to what is depicted. In this case, part of being a priest is to be Christ as bridegroom. It is impossible for a woman to be a “groom.”
See Christ, the bridegroom: Why a peiest must be male for Church doc references
I think you have it backward. The Church cannot ordain women not because Christ did not appoint women, but because the Church has no authority to ordain women. .I’m sure you’d agree, though, that the Bible points quite clearly to the Trinity. Not necessarily as was dogmatically defined in the early councils - there’s no language of mia ousia, treis hypostasies - but we can see the Trinity at work in Scripture!
Likewise, what you say about the Eucharist is true; but given Paul’s teaching on the body of the Lord in 1 Corinthians, and what John 6 says about real food and real drink, it seems clear that the ancient Catholic consensus on the Eucharistic presence is Scripturally warranted.
Is the same true of a male-only priesthood? Because what I’ve seen so far, re: scripture at least, is an argument from silence. Christ didn’t appoint female apostles, therefore the Church can’t ordain women. This seems problematic for a few reasons, which I’m sure you can guess. So can you offer more than an argument from silence?
No because only the primary “sacramental” image demands this.That seems a dangerous line of reasoning. By the same logic, if the Church is the bride then only women can be Christians, because men can’t be brides…
No matter what the gender is…the soul of a person is bride to Christ the Bridegroom.That seems a dangerous line of reasoning. By the same logic, if the Church is the bride then only women can be Christians, because men can’t be brides…
The sacraments are all instituted by Christ. He is the one that made “Orders” and that is one reason the Church does as He did. Another reason is that most all covenants have been based on a marital relationship. If Christ is the head, then the Church is the spouse. When Christ is offered in the sacrifice, one like Christ is doing the offering to the Father. The priesthood of Melchizedek is the male line and has been restored to the original from the Levites. So if God chose a particular way for the priesthood it must be the best way because He is God. We cannot in all honesty choose another way that is different than what God Himself chose.The reason the Church cannot ordain women is the Church has not been granted the authority. If there is an authoritative statement (dogma, not the opinion of any particular theologian) as to the specific reason, I would like to see the source.
There are constantly cited examples such as “all apostles were men,” “traditionally all priest have been men,” etc. Those are actually not reasons; they’re observations. I have yet to see what reason that underlies those observations is. And, furthermore, my statements are based on what people far more informed on the matter have stated.
There is no reason to feel inferior for being a woman. The greatest person and saint ever created is a woman; Mary our Blessed Mother. I am sure if Christ willed for women to be priests He would have selected His sinless Mother to be the first to consecrate Him and hold Him in the Eucharist. Yet, He did not do this, and not because Christ caved to public and social norms but because He did not will it to happen.a classmate today asked me about the all male hierarchy in our church
this is the explanation i gave: that Jesus was born as a man, chose male apostles to fulfill that particular ministry and they needed to be as close as possible to his nature in order ot act persona cristi. also, it is a position fo service and sacrifice, not of power and control. and there are different parts of the body of christ, with different roles. did i miss anything?
relating to that though, does being a woman just automatically make her unfit to be a priest, is there anything else besides gender? i do still struggle with this sometimes. it does make it feel like we’re not good enough sometimes or somehow inferior. i know it’s about physical life and spiritual life but men do participate in physical life as well. if there were no women, there could still be a church.
Here is a link to Fr. William Saunders explanation; which I found to be very helpful.CCC 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. 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.
Your explanation is much better than mine. Thanks.The reason only men can be priests is because the Church is the bride and Jesus is the bridegroom. The Bible refers to the Church as the bride and Jesus as the bridegroom. The priest stands in persona Christi at Mass. If a woman was a priest, it would be like saying a woman could be a bridegroom, i.e. two women marrying.
How can men be members of the Church then? Surely by this logic they need to be female, or you have a male Christ married to a male Christian!The reason only men can be priests is because the Church is the bride and Jesus is the bridegroom. The Bible refers to the Church as the bride and Jesus as the bridegroom. The priest stands in persona Christi at Mass. If a woman was a priest, it would be like saying a woman could be a bridegroom, i.e. two women marrying.
Yes, we have a priestly function when we are baptized but we do not have the liturgical functions of priesthood that is reserved for the sacrament. We do not have the “headship” that is part of the hierarchy of the Church that Christ established that goes back in a line to the apostles. When a person is ordained he then is in persona Christi and stands in for the “PERSON” of Christ. The total person is the fullness of the type that Christ was. In my opinion, and it is my opinion, adding something to the “person” of Christ is a human development and not that of the Church. In history many female ministers were of pagan religions. They did not have the concept of fatherhood that is seen in Christ’s Church. My opinion is also that is why some churches are failing when they have female pastors and elect female bishops. But again that is just my opinion.How can men be members of the Church then? Surely by this logic they need to be female, or you have a male Christ married to a male Christian!
Likewise, surely both men and women have put on Christ in baptism? If we are in persona Christi with respect to our baptism, why is it so different that we should be so in other ways?
I don’t think you’re answering my question. When I mentioned baptism I wasn’t talking about a priestly function per se, although we’d both agree that that’s part of what baptism entails. I’m saying that baptism involves being conformed to Christ. We die, and he lives in us. We put him on. We are clothed with the Lord. We share his life, and are restored in his image. As in Adam we have all sinned, in Christ we are restored.Yes, we have a priestly function when we are baptized but we do not have the liturgical functions of priesthood that is reserved for the sacrament. We do not have the “headship” that is part of the hierarchy of the Church that Christ established that goes back in a line to the apostles. When a person is ordained he then is in persona Christi and stands in for the “PERSON” of Christ. The total person is the fullness of the type that Christ was. In my opinion, and it is my opinion, adding something to the “person” of Christ is a human development and not that of the Church. In history many female ministers were of pagan religions. They did not have the concept of fatherhood that is seen in Christ’s Church. My opinion is also that is why some churches are failing when they have female pastors and elect female bishops. But again that is just my opinion.
I see. Sorry for a misunderstanding. But to answer the question it is more than being conformed in Christ when we receive Baptism. We are receiving the life of the Trinity. That life is the love of the Father for the Son which produces or “proceeds” new life of the Spirit. The model of marriage is that of the Trinity in which we pro-create new life. That is also the function of Baptism in we regenerate a new life of the Trinity in us in all aspects, not just by gender. Hope this helps. In a family there should be a headship just as Christ is for the Church.I don’t think you’re answering my question. When I mentioned baptism I wasn’t talking about a priestly function per se, although we’d both agree that that’s part of what baptism entails. I’m saying that baptism involves being conformed to Christ. We die, and he lives in us. We put him on. We are clothed with the Lord. We share his life, and are restored in his image. As in Adam we have all sinned, in Christ we are restored.
This being the case, I fail to see how being female can be a real obstacle to existing in, or showing forth, the person of Christ as the true minister of the sacrament.
Sure, I get that. My question is this: if a woman can put on Christ in baptism, and her female-ness is no obstacle to that great transformation, why can she not act in persona Christi at the altar?I see. Sorry for a misunderstanding. But to answer the question it is more than being conformed in Christ when we receive Baptism. We are receiving the life of the Trinity. That life is the love of the Father for the Son which produces or “proceeds” new life of the Spirit. The model of marriage is that of the Trinity in which we pro-create new life. That is also the function of Baptism in we regenerate a new life of the Trinity in us in all aspects, not just by gender. Hope this helps. In a family there should be a headship just as Christ is for the Church.
You ask a good question but I can only say she does not have the full “Personhood” that Christ has. This is a philosophical question about “personhood” that I believe the Church uses in determining the liturgical priesthood. At each Mass, Christ is offering Himself to the Father as a person, so a female is not the same type of person as Christ is I believe. These are my answers but I would hope that there are better ones out there. This is not to say each person does not have equal dignity.Sure, I get that. My question is this: if a woman can put on Christ in baptism, and her female-ness is no obstacle to that great transformation, why can she not act in persona Christi at the altar?
Because God, through the Holy Spirit, has declared this. Being part of Christ’s mystical body (as we are in Baptism) is a very different affair from acting in persona Christi as the Holy Spirit has revealed to us.Sure, I get that. My question is this: if a woman can put on Christ in baptism, and her female-ness is no obstacle to that great transformation, why can she not act in persona Christi at the altar?