female priests

[Jennifer123]

The question that remains unanswered is why does Christ’s gender play a role in the act of salvation? So as to render women incapable of acting in the person of Christ on the altar? Do other physcial and pyschological traits not factor in to representing Jesus? Why or why not? If the priest acts in the person of Christ, surely, by some vast merit of grace, other non-Jesus traits are not taken into consideration?

You can not just assume that their absence automatically means it is discriminatory. Just because women can’t be priests ignores all the ways that women have been very important to the Church historically and presently.

Women can’t be priests any more than men can give birth. I know its been said, but it is just not something the Church can authorize. God Himself created man and woman, they are not interchangeable under any human authority, and if women feel called to specifically be priests, then it is automatically not a valid call because God, instituting a male priesthood, would not call a woman. The priesthood is not a “career”, it is a vocation. Women can certainly have an authentic call to a higher order of holiness, but we mustn’t confuse that as meaning the priesthood is the only valid option. The Church, meaning as all of us, would suffer because God needs women to answer the calls to holiness using their own specific spirituality and vocations as the “Body of Christ”.

Here is a good explanation:
“Although Jewish society may not have welcomed a female priesthood, the Gentiles to whom Paul and others preached would certainly have been open to it. The Greek mystery cults, for instance, included priestesses. Hence, if the male priesthood was only a custom, conditioned by the historical setting of Jesus, then it seems likely that the early Church would have abandoned this custom among Gentile Christians (especially since the Council of Jerusalem made the momentous decision that Jewish customs need not be embraced by Gentiles converting to Christianity).”
catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/0506-96/article4.html

 

[mikew262]

All members of the Church are priests.

Huh?

 

[buffalo]

Huh?

[546](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1546.htm’) Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."21
[1547](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1547.htm’) The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit–, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a *means *by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

 

[Uncle_David]

Here’s a good explanation.

catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp

 

[Titus]

Huh?

I believe that the OP was saying that all baptised members of the church are part of the universal priesthood, the Body of Christ (a name which caused problems earlier in this discussion).

However an earlier poster reminded us of the clear distinction between the **universal **priesthood (which anyone male or female is part of [clearly supported by scripture]) and the **ministerial **priesthood (which is for a group of chosen men [see the parallel with the Levites]).

I would just say that although this debate is not a difficult one for well-catechised Catholics, it is for many others (IMHO because in modern times we tend to look at this issue on a purely secular level), and we should welcome their comments and try to explain our decision to them.

*I started my answer before the above post was written. Wasn’t just flogging a dead horse. *

 

[Brendan]

just recently read a thread replied by an Apologist argueing that male only priests is as natural as female only child bearers.

seemingly a valid arguement but females are biologically build so that they alone may bear children. Im not sure God build males so that they are perfectly suited to be priests.

Considering there is no scientific evidence of sort and what evidence we do have sents the message that males would be worse priests with them being more aggresive.

Humans are the union of body and soul, biology and ontology.

Females are created with a biology that is geared towards the generation of biological life.

Males are created with a ontology that is geared towards the generation of ontological life.

When when seeks information on biology, one seeks out an expert biologist.

Likewise when one seeks out information on ontology, one seeks out an expert ontologist (the Church)

It’s not a good idea to try and confuse the various experts.

 

[R_McGeddon]

So, by your logic, the pope must wear the same type of gament as Jesus wore so that his words would be true?

I would say more modestly.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Perhaps you do not realize that the Pope does not spend all his time wandering around in expensive garments; that, just as the High Priest in the Jewish temple wore special robes when acting as High Priest, the Pope also wears “special robes” when he is acting also as ‘high priest’. IOW, when the Pope is not out celebrating a Mass, or officiating at meetings, or engaged in diplomatic voyages, etc. he wears simple clothing.

Iconoclassicism was declared a heresy many centuries ago, because people could not differentiate between ‘appropriate’ uses of ceremonial things and falsely sought to enforce their own views.

If God commissioned the Ark of the Covenant to be not just a plain wood box but something of extraordinary worth and beauty, and also to have his priests, when acting as priests, wearing garments of extraordinary worth and beauty, He isn’t going to ‘change His mind’ and insist suddenly that everybody wear the ‘simple robe’ that Jesus supposedly wore. I say “supposedly” because we do not know that Jesus did not wear His “best”, after all. In fact, we do know that His robe, for example, was felt to be of such high quality that the soldiers didn’t want to tear it, as was usual with the garments of condemned criminals, but rather played dice for it.

So, Jesus was actually wearing clothing of some worth. . .the Bible tells us so.

 

[FCEGM]

The question that remains unanswered is why does Christ’s gender play a role in the act of salvation? So as to render women incapable of acting in the person of Christ on the altar? Do other physcial and pyschological traits not factor in to representing Jesus? Why or why not? If the priest acts in the person of Christ, surely, by some vast merit of grace, other non-Jesus traits are not taken into consideration?

bringyou.to/apologetics/a49.htm

. . .Humans are animal persons who are either male or female as to gender. That is why we are not angels. Since being male or female is essential to being human, in becoming human God the Son must become a definite man or woman, and He became a definite man. And coming as a definite man, He reveals Who God is and who we are simultaneously. We are not amoebas who multiply by simple division, but are sexual beings (which biologically introduces a differentiation, as opposed to uniformity) who are individual persons. For God to become one of us He by definition has to become either a definite man or a definite woman. He became a definite man.

Nothing prevents a man from representing all mankind; in fact it is common for a man to represent a whole people. But man can also represent God as Creator and Absolute Origin of life. And this a woman can not represent. Why? For the simple reason that she is not the absolute origin in human generation but the collaborating and contributing cause, as it is the man who impregnates. Thus it is most fitting that God in becoming a human being became a male rather than a female. . .

. . .The New and Eternal Covenant in His Blood is a Wedding Covenant. God in seeking out the lost sheep (fallen mankind) has freely chosen to seek her out as a groom does a bride, and desired to have us spent eternity with Him in a Wedding Feast without end. Christ as Redeemer, then, is a Groom, i.e., a Spouse. This a woman can not symbolize by her sexual nature as a woman, i.e., in her very being. Thus from the viewpoint of Redemption as well as Creation it is impossible for a woman to symbolize by her existence God the Creator or Redeemer. It is therefore most fitting that God become a definite male in Christ, fitting to Who He is and what He intends to do. . .

bringyou.to/apologetics/a51.htm

. . .It is obvious that a woman can not symbolize being Christ the Groom (inescapably male); neither also the supernatural Headship (i.e., as reference point and absolute origin – rather than superiority - like the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit in the Trinity). So it is not a put-down of the natural or attained abilities of a woman who could function in the activities of the office as well - or in some cases (preaching) better – than a man or particular men from a social point of view. It is the lack of symbolism in being a woman of the specific Man Jesus Christ Who as a man is Priest, Head to the Body, Groom to the Bride, Son to the Father, Father of the World to Come. The woman can of course symbolize the Body and the Bride of Christ and she does, and Mary is the Woman and the symbol of the Church in its highest. . .

 

[maryj]

The question that remains unanswered is why does Christ’s gender play a role in the act of salvation? So as to render women incapable of acting in the person of Christ on the altar? Do other physcial and pyschological traits not factor in to representing Jesus? Why or why not? If the priest acts in the person of Christ, surely, by some vast merit of grace, other non-Jesus traits are not taken into consideration?

One more time… I am a woman, I can not be a priest. I am a bride, my husband is my bridegroom. He is the only one that can bring life to my womb, we are in a marital covenant, which he entered into with me on our wedding day. One woman and one woman alone. Please read this lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=147 and then let’s come back for your thoughts on this. I’ll be patient.

 

[Nita]

The new covenant is fundamentally different than the last. The continuity between the two preisthoods is symbollic. The Law saw women as less than worthy or at least more apt to defilement than males. Evident in the way that purity laws were more harsh with females.

I am always perplexed as to how Catholics never seem to acknowledge that the gospels were written in a patriarchial context and that it is only logical that they would reflect this society to a significant degree. The gospels have no Christian priesthood and make no specifications for one.

Because Jesus had no female apostles is not a legitimate point against females as priests. He had many female disciples. When the Old Testament makes a moral proclaimation such as “do not covet your neighbours wife” we say this applies to both male and female? Why? If we’re going to be gender speicific and completely ignore the fact that the scriptures were written in a male dominated period…then we need to ignore that on all accounts.

If Jesus could represent a woman on the cross, why can’t she represent him on the altar? On the cross Jesus transcended gender boundaries. There is nothing demonstratably different about a woman than makes her illegitimate for the priesthood or representing Christ. It paints a picture of atonement to which the penis is somehow fundamental in the salvation act.

I guess I don’t see as big a disconnect between the two covenants as you do. The new covenant has its roots, so to speak, in the old. It was the old covenant that foretold not only a new covenant but also a new priesthood. (Isaiah 66:18-21 …and I am coming to gather all nations and tongues… And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD. “Priests and Levites” were of course male.

You get quite biological in your last statement, so I will too. There’s an interesting biological fact that may or may not have some bearing on all this. Physically, it is in the male only, that the seed for both genders is present!!

Nita

 

[Gnosis]

The question that remains unanswered is why does Christ’s gender play a role in the act of salvation? So as to render women incapable of acting in the person of Christ on the altar? Do other physcial and pyschological traits not factor in to representing Jesus? Why or why not? If the priest acts in the person of Christ, surely, by some vast merit of grace, other non-Jesus traits are not taken into consideration?

No one is approachign this question. I’ll momentarily accept that a person can not work in the person of Christ unless they are male. However, my question is, if you are going to use that criteria, why does it simply stop at gender. If Christ was both human and divine, so that gender (being part of his human nature) must be accurately reflected on the altar, why do other physical and pyschological factors not matter when a priest works in the person of Christ?

Surely, the priest does not need to reflect Christ in every way to be able to act in the person of Christ. What this implies is that many traits that Jesus did not embody do not get in the way of a priest acting in the person of Christ. It also implies that the priest has qualities that Jesus himself did not have (physical, genetic, pyschological ect.).

If we are to say that a priest must match Jesus’ gender, why not other qualities?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Because.

Seriously.

If you believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, then you don’t have a problem with the “male only” priesthood, because you thoroughly accept all the reasons (the persona Christi, the Jewish foreshadowing priesthood, the male-ness and female-ness of the Groom/Christ and Bride/Church as foreshadowed by the Song of Songs etc., the historical/scriptural/oral traditions, and above all the Spirit-led teaching authority of the church, and possibly hundreds of other reasons). Because it is a mystery, after all, that Christ became Incarnate. The Trinity is a mystery. The Eucharist is a mystery. The Resurrection is a mystery. All require faith, and none of them can be explained away in purely human terms; and none of them can be fully understood to correspond to ‘contemporary society’. They transcend not just that time, but our time, and indeed all time.

If you don’t believe then your understanding is limited to purely human terms, and you will tend to try to box God in to those purely human terms, and whatever politically correct notions exist in your worldview right now today right here.

 

[AlegreFe]

…
If you believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, then you don’t have a problem with the “male only” priesthood, because you thoroughly accept all the reasons (the persona Christi, the Jewish foreshadowing priesthood, the male-ness and female-ness of the Groom/Christ and Bride/Church as foreshadowed by the Song of Songs etc.,

That’s the way that I have heard it described. Johnette Benkovic described it so nicely and so simply when I saw her on “Life On The Rock” once.

the historical/scriptural/oral traditions, and above all the Spirit-led teaching authority of the church, and possibly hundreds of other reasons). Because it is a mystery, after all, that Christ became Incarnate. The Trinity is a mystery. The Eucharist is a mystery. The Resurrection is a mystery. All require faith, and none of them can be explained away in purely human terms; and none of them can be fully understood to correspond to ‘contemporary society’. They transcend not just that time, but our time, and indeed all time.

Nowhere in the bible does it say, “without understanding it is impossible to please God” but it does say “without FAITH it is impossible to please God.”

If you don’t believe then your understanding is limited to purely human terms, and you will tend to try to box God in to those purely human terms, and whatever politically correct notions exist in your worldview right now today right here.

You are so right!

When I try to explain to my Protestant brother about what God can do (in the case of our conversation at that time was Mary’s sinlessness), I tell him that he is underestimating God. NEVER underestimate God. God is omnipotent and therefore can do ANYTHING. God does things because he can and not only that, He does things because it is fitting. Everything has a reason and when things are fitting, God will do it. He’s a Genius too!

 

[AlegreFe]

Here’s an article on this very topic from Jason Evert in “This Rock” magazine.

 

[AlegreFe]

This image of Christ as the bridegroom is clear and
unambiguous only when the priest is a man.

However, the Church in ordaining only men defends a deeper
reality — a truth denied by this age — that men and women
are, by nature of their creation, different and called to different
vocations. The rejection of Christian truth that men and
women possess equality of dignity, not identity of function,
has caused confusion that diminishes womanhood, as well as
manhood.

In his letter, John Paul II explores the differences between
men and women, demonstrating how woman’s “feminine
originality” and “essential richness” are rooted in the
vocations of motherhood and virginity. This motherhood, which
includes an openness to life and a special concern for the
human person, is expressed in, but not limited to, pregnancy
and the care of children. All women are called to a spiritual
motherhood that expresses their receptiveness and
willingness to give themselves to others. The Pope points to
Mary, Virgin and Mother, as the image for all women.

The movement to recognize the equal dignity and worth of
women, to offer them a wider influence in the world outside the
home and opportunities to develop and use their gifts and
talents — a movement the Church fully supports — has been
perverted into a radical feminism that diminishes the value of
motherhood. The differences between men and women are not
deformities caused by unjust gender socialization but
expressions of the richness of a humanity divided from the
beginning by God’s plan into two distinct sexes.

But for radical feminists, such as Shulamith Firestone, “The
end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first
feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege
but of sex distinction itself: genital difference between human
beings would no longer matter culturally.”

In Justice, Gender, and the Family, Susan Miller Okin says
the only way to obtain equality for women is to remove all
difference between the sexes. “It seems undeniable,” she
writes, “that the promotion of justice throughout our society
would be aided through dissolution of gender roles.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Justice for women will
not come from denying differences between the sexes but by
understanding and accepting those differences. Motherhood
and fatherhood are not artificial “gender roles” imposed on
androgynous beings but expressions of the vocations for
which we have been created. Attempts to create a
homogenized parenthood do not liberate women but restrict
them.

Women will find equality of dignity when they are free to
express their motherhood fully, and when the insights, talents,
and gifts that are unique to women have equal expression
within society with those of men. In clearly proclaiming the
differences between men and women, the Church calls for an
equality that does not compromise the true nature of women
and does not force them to sacrifice their womanhood in a
vain attempt to imitate men. Such an imitation is
fundamentally anti-woman.

Ms. Okin says that “the attainment of such a just future
requires major changes in a multitude of institutions.” But
even the most massive changes in the family and society will
not change human nature.

The Church proclaims what our gut reactions confirm: Men
and women are not interchangeable parts. The vocation of
husband is different from the vocation of wife. Motherhood
differs from fatherhood. The Church proclaims that the priest,
representing Christ the Bridegroom, Who gives His life for the
Church, His Bride, is a pattern for all men, who are called to
sacrifice themselves for others. Christ’s love of the Church as
a model for human love is destroyed by pretending that the
sex of the priest is irrelevant.

(Mrs. O’Leary is the author of The Gender Agenda and a
founding member of The Alliance of Catholic Women. This
article is reprinted with permission from Canticle Magazine,
the Voice of Today’s Catholic Woman.)

 

[AlegreFe]

So Why No Women Priests?
The simple reason is that she just cannot do it, as her
documents clearly state. According to Inter Insignores, the
Church “does not consider herself authorized to admit women
to priestly ordination” (3). And in his recent letter Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II authoritatively writes: “I
declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer
priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be
definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (4).

So it is not that the Church can but will not; rather,
she does not because she cannot!

 

[Nita]

*The question that remains unanswered is why does Christ’s gender play a role in the act of salvation? *

Maybe because Adam, who was ultimately responsible for the fallen state of mankind, was a male.

I don’t know why God chose to create two genders in humans, or why He chose to create Adam first and place the primary responsibility for the state of future humanity on his choice to be obedient or not. But, He did. And only He knows why.

Nita

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Please bear in mind that there are differences between the sexes despite the claims of those who would try to minimise these differences. Technically speaking on a biological level, men and women are different right down to the xx and xy in their every cell.

In regards to spirit, I suspect there is no difference between male and female. Both are more than likely feminine in the eyes of God as we collectively represent the “Bride of Christ”. Consequently, I think this may be kind of reflected in the very conception of the human being.

For example, all children in the womb are essentially female in appearance until 3 months-- then the physical characteristics start to emerge due to chemical changes in the body. However, the actual sex of the child in the womb is actually determined at the time of conception, determined by the chromosomes of the male sperm cell at the time of conception.

Notwithstanding this fundamental cellular difference, development of a fertilized egg appears the same in appearance for male and female until at a certain stage. This is when, it is thought due to the genes on the Y-chromosome, male babies in the womb start to produce substances that change the development to follow the ‘male’ course.

This is hitting on a difference in ‘genotype’ versus ‘phenotype’ here. The fertilized egg has the genotype of male or female, but the phenotype (the ‘form’ you see) is not yet apparent. The difference between genotype and phenotype is crucial in biology but it is often ignored.

Now while many mainstream scientists and many feminists often claim that all babies in the womb are female until androgens masculinize the XY ones, it should also be noted that Fausto-Sterling casts doubt on the science around that. By pointing out that all babies in the womb are awash in a bath of hormones from the mother, it also remains possible that for a female baby to feminize “properly” that the mother’s hormones must be present too.

Either way you look at it, there definitely are some striking biological differences between men and women, from the hardwiring of the brain to the structure of our chomosomes. I’m fairly sure these biological factors must play some part in God’s decision to have men within the preisthood. I’m fairly sure it’s not just a matter of “patriarchal bias” either.

www-unix.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/fetus.html
newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00074.htm

 

[Nita]

Please read this lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=147 and then let’s come back for your thoughts on this. I’ll be patient.

Thanks for the link Maryj. Found it very interesting.

Nita