Is the fact that Christ became a man an attack on the dignity of women?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dennisknapp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dennisknapp

Guest
I have heard many say that women not being allowed to become priests is a attack on the dignity of women.

One of the arguments against women’s ordination is the fact that the priest stand *in persona Christi *during his roles at the mass and in the rite of confession.

*In persona Christi *teaches the priest is acting in the Person of Christ when he says, “this is my body” and “I absolve you of your sins.”

The reasoning goes that Christ is a man and therefore only men can stand *in persona Christi. *

So, is the fact that Christ became a man an attack on the dignity of women? It is clear that his choice of gender affects who can act in His Person.
  1. Christ chose to be born a man.
  2. a priest acts in the Person of Christ.
  3. Therefore, a priest must also be a man.
Peace
 
I personally do not see it as an attack on women’s dignity.

Karen
 
This line of questioning caused me to chuckle, could you imagine what would have happened had Jesus been a woman back in that era?

I mean seriously, not a lot of people took Jesus seriously and he was a man, how serious do you think the people would have taken Jesus if He had been a woman back then?
 
40.png
gelsbern:
I mean seriously, not a lot of people took Jesus seriously and he was a man, how serious do you think the people would have taken Jesus if it had been a woman back then?
Click to expand...
Radical feminists and others of that type of “logic” don’t let facts get in the way of their ideology!! 😉
 
40.png
Jennifer123:
Radical feminists and others of that type of “logic” don’t let facts get in the way of their ideology!! 😉
Click to expand...
My Point exactly!

An attack on the male priesthood is an attack on the Incarnation of Christ.

Peace
 
The blessed Trinity has three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and of course God the Holy Spirit! Father and Son are both Males hence the pronoun, He or Him but also it was the Holy Spirit whose visit to our Holy Mother conceived our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. So is it right and correct to say that God Himself, beyond gender has always revealed Himself to us as Man, God the Father and God the Son?
 
40.png
Jennifer123:
Radical feminists and others of that type of “logic” don’t let facts get in the way of their ideology!! 😉
Click to expand...
I will never understand the thought that women are somehow being oppressed or something if they are not seen as the *exact same *as men. What is so wrong with being different, distinct? Should I be terribly offended that I can’t bear children?! Dios mio…
 
40.png
gelsbern:
This line of questioning caused me to chuckle, could you imagine what would have happened had Jesus been a woman back in that era?

I mean seriously, not a lot of people took Jesus seriously and he was a man, how serious do you think the people would have taken Jesus if He had been a woman back then?
Click to expand...
Exactly, ask the Jewish people about having a woman ascend to the throne of David. Or St. Paul how a woman could be fill in the line of Melchizedek:

Pslam 110
"1 A psalm of David. The LORD says to you, my lord: “Take your throne at my righthand, while I make your enemies your footstool.” 2 The scepter of your sovereign might the LORD will extend from Zion. The LORD says: “Rule over your enemies! 3 Yours is princely power from the day of your birth. In holy splendor before the daystar, like the dew I begot you.” 4 The LORD has sworn and will not waver: “Like Melchizedek you are a priest forever.”

Hebrews 5:“1 Every high priest is taken from among men and made their representative before God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal patiently with the ignorant and erring, for he himself is beset by weakness 3 and so, for this reason, must make sin offerings for himself as well as for the people. 4 No one takes this honor upon himself but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 In the same way, it was not Christ who glorified himself in becoming high priest, but rather the one who said to him: “You are my son; this day I have begotten you”; 6 just as he says in another place: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” 7 In the days when he was in the flesh, he offered prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered; 9 and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, 10 declared by God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.” Thanks and God Bless.
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
My Point exactly!

An attack on the male priesthood is an attack on the Incarnation of Christ.

Peace
Click to expand...
And it was a **male **lamb God commanded the Israelites to slay and consume on the night of the Passover in the time of bondage in Egypt…
 
I don’t see how Christ’s maleness, or that of his priests, is an attack on women’s dignity. And I can’t imagine why women should be unhappy that they are not called upon to be priests.

Even though he was the Son of God, Christ was extremely humble as a man. He didn’t even put himself above prostitutes and adulteresses, but instead sacrificed his own reputation in order to grant them forgiveness and guide them back onto the right path–to give them a new lease on life, as a prelude to the new lease on life he would give everyone.

As followers in His footsteps, priests likewise are among the most humble people on earth. Like Christ, they are here to serve and love everyone around them, men and women alike. In doing so, they give up their own egos and desires, and would indeed sacrifice their lives for their loved ones (human and divine).

It’s true that priests are revered, special, and have a special kind of power. But it is not at the expense of other people–and definitely not at the expense of women. Quite to the contrary, it is so that they can better serve others. Let’s face it, men (generally) don’t tend to be natural-born servants! Christ definitely wasn’t like all the other men of his time (or any time!). So, I think that’s why priests receive the special divine graces and powers they have–they require them! Women are naturally full of their own special graces and powers, and other “normal” men have theirs too! They may be different in each case, but none of them are more or less or better or worse.

In the words of a wonderful priest I know, “Priests aren’t special. All people are special. And that goes for people’s callings too.”
 
40.png
eddie:
The blessed Trinity has three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and of course God the Holy Spirit! Father and Son are both Males hence the pronoun, He or Him but also it was the Holy Spirit whose visit to our Holy Mother conceived our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. So is it right and correct to say that God Himself, beyond gender has always revealed Himself to us as Man, God the Father and God the Son?
Click to expand...
No, no, no! God the Father is not a male. God has not always revealed Himself as Man. Believe me, I am no proponent of calling God a she or anything like that, but God has also revealed Himself in feminine terms. Much less, and much more metaphorically, but it is heterodox to say that God the Father is male.
CCC 370:
In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective “perfections” of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.
Click to expand...
 
I don’t believe intellectually or feel emotionally that it’s an attack on women. However, as I posted before, I don’t think we should be surprised that the church’s logic on this is not persuasive to some people. Yes, I’ve read Ordinato Sacerdotalis and I understand the church’s position. For me, personally, I would not be able to relate to a woman as a priest. However, the logic boils down to: Christ didn’t name women apostles and the church has always done it this way and so we can’t do it any other way.

As someone else pointed out, back then no man would have followed a woman or taken her seriously. So maybe Christ didn’t appoint women as apostles because of practical considerations-- not theological. There’s no way for us to know, so it boils down to just accepting the church’s authority in the matter. I do, but I don’t think there’s any reason to become defensive when women question this, or call them feminazis. They might just be sincerely thinking about their faith, and that’s not a bad thing.

However, I do think many of the women who really push for women’s ordination do so out of a desire for power and prestige, and to satisfy their ego, rather than a sincere desire to serve. Those are very bad reasons for anyone wanting to be a priest.
 
40.png
jp2fan:
No, no, no! God the Father is not a male. God has not always revealed Himself as Man. Believe me, I am no proponent of calling God a she or anything like that, but God has also revealed Himself in feminine terms. Much less, and much more metaphorically, but it is heterodox to say that God the Father is male.
Click to expand...
Being a spiritual entity, it’s true that in reality God probably isn’t male or female, in the way that corporeal creatures are. I think that over the ages, He has taken on mostly masculine qualities because he has revealed Himself mostly to men–probably for the practical reasons that in ancient Hebrew society, men were the only ones who had any power.

When you think about it, the Hebrews desperately needed a father-figure, a king, and a great general who would help them to survive and fight off the much larger, older, more powerful civilizations surrounding them. And God was all of those things and more to them. So, I consider it pretty natural that God the Father is conceived of as male.

Now, the Holy Spirit, on the other hand is very obviously feminine to me. Sort of the other side of the coin from God the Father. It is the Holy Spirit that gave Mary the gift and honor of motherhood. I believe it is the Holy Spirit who gives all women the grace and strength to be good mothers. And to everyone, the Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts–knowledge, wisdom, fortitude, etc.

All of which serve to temper the sometimes more wrathful, destructive tendancies of God the Father, and of human males. But of course those seemingly more “negative” qualities are very essential to survival too. They give men the grace they need to work hard, provide for their families, and protect their homes and countries, fighting and risking their lives when necessary.

I hope this doesn’t sound terrible or disrespectful, but in a way, it’s almost like God the Father provides the spiritual equivalent of testosterone, and the Holy Spirit provides the spiritual equivalent of estrogen. And God the Son is sort of a perfect combination of both. 🙂
 
40.png
Bibliothecaria:
Being a spiritual entity, it’s true that in reality God probably isn’t male or female, in the way that corporeal creatures are. I think that over the ages, He has taken on mostly masculine qualities because he has revealed Himself mostly to men–probably for the practical reasons that in ancient Hebrew society, men were the only ones who had any power.

When you think about it, the Hebrews desperately needed a father-figure, a king, and a great general who would help them to survive and fight off the much larger, older, more powerful civilizations surrounding them. And God was all of those things and more to them. So, I consider it pretty natural that God the Father is conceived of as male.

Now, the Holy Spirit, on the other hand is very obviously feminine to me. Sort of the other side of the coin from God the Father. It is the Holy Spirit that gave Mary the gift and honor of motherhood. I believe it is the Holy Spirit who gives all women the grace and strength to be good mothers. And to everyone, the Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts–knowledge, wisdom, fortitude, etc.

All of which serve to temper the sometimes more wrathful, destructive tendancies of God the Father, and of human males. But of course those seemingly more “negative” qualities are very essential to survival too. They give men the grace they need to work hard, provide for their families, and protect their homes and countries, fighting and risking their lives when necessary.

I hope this doesn’t sound terrible or disrespectful, but in a way, it’s almost like God the Father provides the spiritual equivalent of testosterone, and the Holy Spirit provides the spiritual equivalent of estrogen. And God the Son is sort of a perfect combination of both. 🙂
Click to expand...
The original question was in regards to the Incarnational fact that the Son chose to be born a man, and this choice has ramifications on who can be in the priesthood.

If Christ chose the be female the same would apply to men.

To stand in persona Christi is a sacramental reality, which means it requires proper form and matter. The proper matter in this case is the maleness of the priest, because Christ is male.

In regards to the Holy Spirit being the feminine aspect of God there are a few problems.

First, Mary concieve by the Holy Spirit. This would be incomprehensible if the Spirit is feminine, for two females cannot produce anything. I am not saying the Spirit had relations with the Blessed Virgin, but the idea of a feminine Spirit helping to concieve the Son of God takes us in a direction we do not want to go.

Peace
 
As someone else pointed out, back then no man would have followed a woman or taken her seriously. So maybe Christ didn’t appoint women as apostles because of practical considerations-- not theological. There’s no way for us to know, so it boils down to just accepting the church’s authority in the matter.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that it is necessary to accept the Church’s authority, but I think there is strong evidence that Christ was following theological rather than practical considerations.
  1. Although Judaism had male priests, most religions around the Jews had priestesses. There was certainly precedence for men following female priests of other religions, even if the Jews did not. If Christ had wanted to ordain female priests, it would have been a shock to the Jews, but it would not be completely unheard of, and it may have made more sense to the Gentiles.
  2. Even if there were no female priests around that time, I hardly see Jesus as a person who was very worried about going along with his society in order to make sure his followers were listened to. After all, he was the one who said that his followers must eat his flesh and drink his blood, which was certainly not in accord with the culture of his time. Jesus was always respectful towards women and he even risked his own reputation in order to forgive them, asI believe someone else pointed out. I find it hard to believe that a man who was so obviously countercultural in many ways would suddenly decide that he should only ordain male priests so that people would listen to them. He never compromised theological concerns in order to win more followers.
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
The original question was in regards to the Incarnational fact that the Son chose to be born a man, and this choice has ramifications on who can be in the priesthood.
Click to expand...
I understand, and think I addressed that in my first post, although without rehashing what everyone before had said about why Christ became a man, instead of a woman–namely, it just flat out wouldn’t have worked. There was no real “choice” involved, back in that time and place. He had to become a man. And I think that does require that priests be men as well. And no, it’s not an indignity to women, because women have their own, different callings, just like priests, and just like men in general. I think we should all be thankful for the lives and the roles we’ve been given.
In regards to the Holy Spirit being the feminine aspect of God there are a few problems.

First, Mary concieve by the Holy Spirit. This would be incomprehensible if the Spirit is feminine, for two females cannot produce anything. I am not saying the Spirit had relations with the Blessed Virgin, but the idea of a feminine Spirit helping to concieve the Son of God takes us in a direction we do not want to go.
Click to expand...
Hm… I don’t consider it any more a problem than God creating Eve from Adam’s body. We all come from God, and the Holy Spirit is part of God. There’s a big difference between a feminine spirit and a “female”. There were no “relations” of any kind–that’s why Mary’s conception is a miracle, and a feminine aspect of God could carry it off just as well as a masculine aspect.

But you’re right, this is very far off-topic! 😉
 
No way Christ HAD to be a man. You can’t but our human limits on God. There are plenty of theological reasonings to why God the Son would come as a man. To claim that he was confined by the culture around him is to limit His omnipotence.

To answer the original question, I am a woman, and I do NOT feel that it is an attack on women’s dignity. Do men think that it is an attack on their dignity that Mary, chosen to bring Christ to the world, is a woman? I mean it would be equally silly. Women need to understand that their dignity doesn’t lie in being the same as men, but in being children of God.
 
Let’s stay on the logic of these feminists:

Since Christ would became man, what sort of a human being would he be in order not to “attack the dignity of women”? The Lord will only chose one type of sexuality, otherwise he cannot become man. Would he choose being a male or a female? Surely there is no such thing as “male-female.” Oh what sort of creature would this be, both male and female? We have to look at the reality, or else we will end up insane.

Christ the Lord, in order for him to became human–like us, must choose only one sexuality. Or else he would contradict the nature of His creation who fell into sin and needed His saving power. And becoming a male perfectly fits into the real picture. For God created man first, not woman. And out of man came the woman. So Christ, the firstborn of all creation, is truly a man–and a human! That’s why Adam does not mean “man” but “human.”

God bless!

Pio
 
The whole power struggle between men and women is a result of the Fall. And God set it up in such a way.

To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen 3:16)
 
Is the Incarnation an attack on women? You BET it is! God is stupid and didn’t have the faintest idea what he was doing. In fact, creating two sexes was stupid! I mean, if GOD were the one having the babies, would he DO this to himself? God is obviously a White, patriarchal, phallocentric, gender-chauvinist macho-man aggrandized into divinity solely and exclusively for the purpose of oppressing women.

He’s coming for tea this afternoon – really, he *is! *And I’m going to set him straight once and for all. I also have a few things to say to that pestilential guy, Paul. What a JERK!

Signed,
Marie of Romania
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top