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

[Della]

There is an aspect to this that no one has mentioned (that I am aware of). That is the fact that Christ is the Second Adam who came to undo the fault of the First Adam. In that fact lies one of the major reasons for a male priesthood.

Adam was in authority over Eve, not because he was superior but because he mirrored Christ’s position within the Holy Trinity, that of being obedient to the Father as the Son. Eve was in the “position” of the Holy Spirit–of the one who only does what he sees the Father and the Son do as he brings life and love to us all. As the Mother of All the Living, Eve was to mirror the Holy Spirit. The authority wasn’t hers to decide to eat of the fruit. She usurped it when she ate of the fruit. And, Adam failed her by eating of it also instead of trying to redeem her, who was to be the Mother of All the Living.

When Adam ate of the fruit he failed in his duty towards Eve and all his descendants. Therefore, since the first man failed a second Man had to redeem the sin of Adam. So actually, the position of the priest is one of reconciler for all of man under the High Priesthood of Christ, the Second Adam who redeemed all of humankind, male and female alike.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

dennisknapp:

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

To be barred from a profession simply because of an accident of birth is generally not a good thing

I know I will never be an NBA player because I’m short but that is measurable and explicable.

What objective measure is used to ban woman? There are no physical requirements to the priesthood that I know of. It is all mental and spiritual. So in the ban it is implicit that women are somehow lacking in those areas.

dennisknapp:

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. *

That is specious at best

A hermaphrodite Christ was probably out of the question. He had to choose one sex or the other. And in the cultural milieu He chose to appear in it made a certain sense to be male.

Are you suggesting that you couldn’t have a lawyer or a realtor or a business agent of a different sex because that would somehow prevent them from standing in for you?

Does your representative to an elective body have to be the same sex?

Christ never fathered a child nor was anthing else He did dependant upon His maleness. Clearly a stand-in could be of either sex. I think that average guy in the pew understands that the Priest is the stand-in and not the Real Thing.

When the Priest says “this is my body” he is not claiming it is his own body he is quoting Christ e.g. ”He broke the bread, gave it to His disciples and said……

Careful of your context.

 

[Bibliothecaria]

jdnation:

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)

That’s a good point, and similar to one I wanted to make. You’re right, the state of women and men is their punishment from the fall. Although let’s remember that the man was punished just as much as the woman, if not more.

My point is that women have a problem with many centuries of being treated as inferior creatures. And their problems are with humans (including other women). They shouldn’t have problems with God, because God loves women just as much as men, and He has given them plenty of their own gifts and responsbilities. Again and again, especially through Jesus, God has shown His love and care for women.

I know that in the past, men (and other women) have very injustly oppressed women, even using scripture to justify it. I think that if all men throughout history had treated women more like Jesus did, there would have been a lot less trouble. But I also think that women being resentful about it now is also a horrible thing.

It’s so easy to blame your troubles and the state of the world on men, God, Church leaders, et al. What is more difficult, and more righteous, is to forgive, to accept, and to appreciate what we have been given. What if Jesus had gone off saying, “I hate my life, I hate my Father for making go through this, it’s just not fair, I’ve never done anything wrong, it’s all because of that disobedient Adam and Eve, etc., etc., etc.”? I know that could never have happened, but it’s just as silly, meaningless, and repulsive when we normal people do it. So it really needs to stop.

Fortunately, I have men in my life who love, respect, and admire me so much that it more than makes up for any previous injustices against womankind. I pray that all women may have that in their lives. When they do, they’ll understand how wrong it is to complain about not being the same, or having all the same roles men do. And how fulfilling it is to be a woman.

 

[Bibliothecaria]

I think **Della **has provided one of the best and most reasonable answers to why priests were meant to be men, and why men and women were meant to be the way they are.

The parallel between Adam and Eve and the Son and the Holy Spirit is brilliant! It takes away all the negativity and hostility that so many people have attributed to that whole situation. Clearly, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not at each other’s throats; they love each other, and realize that in reality they are One–that is the same relationship men and women should have.

It’s important that the Son sent the Holy Spirit after Him to console us and continue His ministering, teaching, and guidance. After Christ’s death, the Holy Spirit took on a much more active, vital role in the world. Am I correct?

In the same way, as time goes on, women are being more and more recognized for their great gifts and contributions to the world. They are being given greater and greater opportunities. They are taking much greater parts in “men’s work”–such as being doctors, lawyers, scholars, etc. However, just as the Holy Spirit will never be exactly the same as the Son, and will never replace Him, women will never be exactly the same as men, or replace them–and that’s especially true of priests, whose work and way of life are derived directly from Christ’s!

 

[dennisknapp]

Steve Andersen:

To be barred from a profession simply because of an accident of birth is generally not a good thing

I know I will never be an NBA player because I’m short but that is measurable and explicable.

What objective measure is used to ban woman? There are no physical requirements to the priesthood that I know of. It is all mental and spiritual. So in the ban it is implicit that women are somehow lacking in those areas.

What about the sacramental aspect of the priesthood? A sacrament has to have proper form and matter. In order for a priest to stand *in persona Christi *the priest must be a man, for being male is the proper matter of the sacramentality of the priesthood.
Steve Andersen:

That is specious at best

A hermaphrodite Christ was probably out of the question. He had to choose one sex or the other. And in the cultural milieu He chose to appear in it made a certain sense to be male.

Are you suggesting that you couldn’t have a lawyer or a realtor or a business agent of a different sex because that would somehow prevent them from standing in for you?

Does your representative to an elective body have to be the same sex?

Christ never fathered a child nor was anthing else He did dependant upon His maleness. Clearly a stand-in could be of either sex. I think that average guy in the pew understands that the Priest is the stand-in and not the Real Thing.

When the Priest says “this is my body” he is not claiming it is his own body he is quoting Christ e.g. ”He broke the bread, gave it to His disciples and said……

Careful of your context.

CCC states

1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:23

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).24
Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ.25

1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."66 The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.68
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.69 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.

Peace

 

[Jennifer123]

Steve Andersen:

To be barred from a profession simply because of an accident of birth is generally not a good thing

We are not accidents - our gender is not accidental. We are distinct beings that are known and loved by God from the beginning of time.

What objective measure is used to ban woman? There are no physical requirements to the priesthood that I know of. It is all mental and spiritual. So in the ban it is implicit that women are somehow lacking in those areas.

Women and Men are equal, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Women have the same dignity as men, but they still don’t have the right to be priests, and neither does the Church have the right to ordain them.

And in the cultural milieu He chose to appear in it made a certain sense to be male.

Jesus did not care nor did He teach doctrine based on what people would think or whether they would be offended. John 6 is a good example of that. If Jesus wanted women to be priest He would have ordained them, simple as that.

Are you suggesting that you couldn’t have a lawyer or a realtor or a business agent of a different sex because that would somehow prevent them from standing in for you?

Does your representative to an elective body have to be the same sex?

Clearly a stand-in could be of either sex.

Being a priest is more than administrative, teaching and pastoral work, etc. Anyone can do those things. The essence of the priesthood is the Sacrifice of the Mass, the feast of the Bridegroom (Jesus) to the Bride (Church). It is not fitting for the bridegroom to be anything other than male, unless you discount the notion of gender which is what is being done by the radical feminists, homosexual agenda, etc. that want to do away with the notion of gender. Gender is not an accident of biology!
The Sacrifice of the Mass, the Marriage Feast of the Lamb, is a sacrament that uses symbology to express His love for us. It is not a right it is a gift that we or the Church has no right to change.

Peace

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

dwc:

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.

I agree with this. If the desire is truly to serve, there are plenty of womens’ religious orders which would probably love to have some new postulants.

There are always the secular orders, for those called to live “in the world”.

And how many priests are over-burdened because they must perform tasks that could be performed by a layperson (administrative, etc.) – there’s another opportunity to serve. Take some of the burden off the priests, and free them up to spend more time on those functions that only a priest can perform.

 

[RobbyS]

Bibliothecaria:

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.”

Radical feminists look at the priesthood as a power grab. It is true that historically priests have abused their spiritual power in order to enhance their temporal power. Likewise, worldly men have enterered the priesthood to fulfil their earthly ambitions. But the true role of the priest is that of servant, one who lives up all to serve the Church. One of the noblest of Christians was Francis of Assisi, who never sought ordination. Nuns who in effect demand ordination exhibit that same vanity that they accuse men of.

 

[JimO]

Bibliothecaria:

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.”

I agree. Besides, what could be more special than being the vessel in which new human souls are created, infused into a body, and brought into the world? This is God’s crowning dignity. Men can’t do this and yet we don’t resent it. Just like the male priesthood, Christ’s maleness, and the male identity of God the Father, it is simply the way God wanted it. Who are we to question His will?

 

[Bibliothecaria]

JimO:

I agree. Besides, what could be more special than being the vessel in which new human souls are created, infused into a body, and brought into the world? This is God’s crowning dignity. Men can’t do this and yet we don’t resent it.

:yup: I understand now that I’m older and wiser what an amazing honor women have. Just a few years ago, I would have scoffed at you and said, “Yeah right, what man in his right mind would resent 9 months of pregnancy and then countless long hours of excruciating pain, sweat, blood, and guts?!” Haha.

I myself used to hate the idea of becoming pregnant and going through labor. Not to mention 18+ years of sacrifice and hard work on top of the sacrifices and hard work I already do outside home. And I didn’t trust that there would always be a man to help me out–that’s the case for lots of women.

But I’ve totally done a 180. Now that I am once more close to the Lord, I feel that I really am fortunate and blessed to have that wonderful possible opportunity before me. It also helps now that I have a man I really love and trust and consider worthy of reproducing.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

JimO:

I agree. Besides, what could be more special than being the vessel in which new human souls are created, infused into a body, and brought into the world? This is God’s crowning dignity. Men can’t do this and yet we don’t resent it. Just like the male priesthood, Christ’s maleness, and the male identity of God the Father, it is simply the way God wanted it. Who are we to question His will?

I don’t believe that a male-only priesthood denies the dignity of women, so I’m not really trying to be a “devil’s advocate” here, but I’d like other peoples’ opinions – where does a woman’s “crowning dignity” come from if it is not given to her to have children (either due to infertility, or because she has never had the opportunity to get married) (and assuming she is not called to the religious life)?

I’m just curious.

 

[Bibliothecaria]

CarolAnnSFO:

I don’t believe that a male-only priesthood denies the dignity of women, so I’m not really trying to be a “devil’s advocate” here, but I’d like other peoples’ opinions – where does a woman’s “crowning dignity” come from if it is not given to her to have children (either due to infertility, or because she has never had the opportunity to get married) (and assuming she is not called to the religious life)?

I’m just curious.

That’s a good point, and I’d like to hear opinions as well.

I think nowadays that women can pretty much derive their dignity from the same things that non-married, non-clergy men do.

I’ve seen lots of my aunts and uncles live very fulfilled lives by themselves. Most of them are academics–professors and researchers. They enjoy teaching their students for part of the year, and for the other part, they enjoy traveling the world and broadening their own horizons! They live very well, too, since they only have themselves to spend money and time on! And when they want to be around kids, they have their nieces and nephews and friends’ kids!

I think it is possible for all single people to live very happy and productive lives. I myself wouldn’t remain single by choice, but even if I did end up a bachelorette, I could occupy myself by becoming a famous novelist, and the world’s greatest librarian! Believe it or not, librarianship could easily take up one’s entire life. Non-stop work and non-stop learning–and you get to help others in a very serious way. So I guess I’d be happy either way.

 

[JimO]

CarolAnnSFO:

I don’t believe that a male-only priesthood denies the dignity of women, so I’m not really trying to be a “devil’s advocate” here, but I’d like other peoples’ opinions – where does a woman’s “crowning dignity” come from if it is not given to her to have children (either due to infertility, or because she has never had the opportunity to get married) (and assuming she is not called to the religious life)?

I’m just curious.

This “crowning dignity” is bestowed on all women because God chose to create every new soul in the womb of a woman. He also chose to bring forth His own Son through a woman without, I might add, the participation of a man. Thus, no man even participated in bringing forth the Messiah.

This dignity is given to all women, or womanhood by virtue of God’s design. Women who don’t have children, are created with the potential, thus they share in this dignity. Women who choose not to have children for the sake of the Kingdom are to be held in the highest esteem in my opinion, as are women who desire to have children but cannot. That is why I believe that God has given men the instinct to protect women, because of their dignity.

I maintain that it’s not the having of a child by an individual woman that gives a woman such dignity, but simply that God created women for this purpose.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

Bibliothecaria:

Most of them are academics–professors and researchers. They enjoy teaching their students for part of the year, and for the other part, they enjoy traveling the world and broadening their own horizons! They live very well, too, since they only have themselves to spend money and time on! And when they want to be around kids, they have their nieces and nephews and friends’ kids!

They’re very fortunate! I’m one of the other kind – have to work long and hard just to get the bills paid, very little extra money, little free time, no traveling, and no nieces or nephews. It’s a struggle to find that dignity, sometimes.

 

[JimO]

Bibliothecaria:

I think nowadays that women can pretty much derive their dignity from the same things that non-married, non-clergy men do.

Just to clarify something. I don’t disagree that men and women can both derive dignity (I’d call it purpose) from many things. However, the “crowning dignity” that I’m refering to is not derived by the person, but bestowed on her directly from God and cannot be taken away by anyone. Any woman in any state of life, in any occupation, with any appearance or any status has this dignity given to her by God. Men are supposed to respect that.

I think it’s awesome.

 

[JimO]

CarolAnnSFO:

It’s a struggle to find that dignity, sometimes.

I have the same struggles sometimes. Just think, though, that the Creator of the Universe, the Almighty God in heaven loves you Carol Ann. He loves you in a way that is unique and different than the way He loves me or anyone else. He has created you uniquely with an eternal soul so that He can be with YOU forever. He wants your company for all eternity. It’s truly awesome.

 

[Bibliothecaria]

JimO:

Just to clarify something. I don’t disagree that men and women can both derive dignity (I’d call it purpose) from many things. However, the “crowning dignity” that I’m refering to is not derived by the person, but bestowed on her directly from God and cannot be taken away by anyone. Any woman in any state of life, in any occupation, with any appearance or any status has this dignity given to her by God. Men are supposed to respect that.

I think it’s awesome.

I guess I was more considering dignity in the eyes of one’s fellow humans. There are still people out there who think there’s something wrong with a woman who can’t or won’t become a mother. And unfortunately, there are men out there who will abandon their wives just so they can have the dignity of being a father, rather than stand beside them, defend them, and work out a better solution, such as adoption. In this world, divinely-given dignity is so often overlooked, or else not believed in to begin with!It’s so sad. To think of all the problems that could be avoided if only everyone regarded their fellow humans in the same way that God does!

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

JimO:

This dignity is given to all women, or womanhood by virtue of God’s design. Women who don’t have children, are created with the potential, thus they share in this dignity. Women who choose not to have children for the sake of the Kingdom are to be held in the highest esteem in my opinion, as are women who desire to have children but cannot. That is why I believe that God has given men the instinct to protect women, because of their dignity.

I maintain that it’s not the having of a child by an individual woman that gives a woman such dignity, but simply that God created women for this purpose.

I really like this description; it is so much more caring than the statements one often sees that exclude any women who don’t have children.

Bibliothecaria:

I guess I was more considering dignity in the eyes of one’s fellow humans. There are still people out there who think there’s something wrong with a woman who can’t or won’t become a mother.

This is true, unfortunately, and there is a third situation beside “can’t” or “won’t” – and that is, the woman who has never had the opportunity to have children, because she’s never been able to find a husband.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

dennisknapp:

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 why is His Jewishness not equally significant ? One has to ask this​

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

If anything, it is an attack on men ​

The priesthood is not a means of self-advancement - it is, or should be, a means of of unlimited self-forgetfulness.
“He who would be great among you must be the servant of all”.

Instead of asking, “why are women excluded?”, perhaps we should be asking, “What have men done to deserve to be picked on like this ?”

To act in persona Christi is the reverse of self-assertion: if anything, the priest should be a man so unreservedly in love with God, that he is prepared to deny even his own self unreservedly.

Christ is the Beloved Son of the Father - Christ was crucified in humiliation and agony. This completely reverses what we might expect. And that is why a view of the priesthood as a place of privilege or power is completely misconceived. But all too often, the priesthood seems to be thought of as a position of privilege.

It would be interesting to know what those who favour women’s ordination think the priesthood is, and is for: then it might be possible to discuss the subject more adequately. ##

 

[Bibliothecaria]

Gottle of Geer:

If anything, it is an attack on men ​

The priesthood is not a means of self-advancement - it is, or should be, a means of of unlimited self-forgetfulness.
“He who would be great among you must be the servant of all”.

Instead of asking, “why are women excluded?”, perhaps we should be asking, “What have men done to deserve to be picked on like this ?”

[snipsnip]

It would be interesting to know what those who favour women’s ordination think the priesthood is, and is for: then it might be possible to discuss the subject more adequately. ##

Actually, all of this is what I was trying to get at in my very first post. You say it so much better! It would be a great idea to pose that question to those in favor of women’s ordaination.