'Persona Christi'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pious
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pious

Guest
A Priest I know said he would rather see women ordained than Priests being allowed to marry; so I asked him how could a woman be in ‘persona Christi’ at the Mass and he said that ‘persona Christi’ means Christ in that person and that Christ could be in a woman and he also quoted a passage in revelations (don’t know which chapter or verse) where it says something along the lines of everyone being equal no male and no female? And he says we are living in the end days.

I said I do not agree with him and that the Catholic Church will never allow women to become Priests, but he said up until a certain date the Catholic Church did not see a problem with slavery and now it has seen the error; so it could change its view on allowing women to be ordained.
 
40.png
Pious:
A Priest I know said he would rather see women ordained than Priests being allowed to marry; so I asked him how could a woman be in ‘persona Christi’ at the Mass and he said that ‘persona Christi’ means Christ in that person and that Christ could be in a woman and he also quoted a passage in revelations (don’t know which chapter or verse) where it says something along the lines of everyone being equal no male and no female? And he says we are living in the end days.
Click to expand...
God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

Why would God discriminate against what God has created? God, after all, is not a man.
 
Pius, I think that the answer to your discussion with the good priest, lies in the study of the Sacraments rather than in scripture.

In Catholic understanding of the Sacraments the Sign or I perfer the work Symbol is extremely important. So important that if there is the proper symbol there is no Sacrament (can’t have the Eucharist with out bread and wine - can’t have Baptism without water etc.)

In regards to the Priesthood, the “Maleness” of the Priest is an important sign. This may be a strech and may be rejected, but ask your priest, if Christ is the Bridegroom of the Church doesn’t this make necassary that the Preist through whom Christ is acting must be male because of it’s smybolism - or perhaps your priest also advocating women bridegroom?
 
The priest may be a nice person, may be a concerned person, but the fact of the matter is, whether HE wants women ordained is a MOOT point. . .the Church HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN WOMEN.

Case closed.

Either we believe in ALL the teachings of the Church. . .or we become dissenting Catholics, schismatic Catholics, heretical Catholics, fallen-away Catholics, MISTAKEN Catholics… .depending on whether we know that we disagree, fully understand, fully choose, etc. etc.
 
Tantum ergo:
The priest may be a nice person, may be a concerned person, but the fact of the matter is, whether HE wants women ordained is a MOOT point. . .the Church HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN WOMEN.
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t it be: the Church has the authority to ordain women, but the Church has decided not to do so?
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
Shouldn’t it be: the Church has the authority to ordain women, but the Church has decided not to do so?
Click to expand...
I think what he means is that there is no way the Church can do it on scriptural basis. I think it may have also been pronounced infallible at some point, and thus the Church can’t go back on what it previously held.
 
What SHE means ( 😃 ) is just what she said. The Church does not have the authority to ordain women.

Oh, and point to the OP: the priest who said that the Church “used to allow slavery and then changed”. . .I’m sorry, that priest is wrong. Chattel slavery was NEVER approved by the Church. The Church did not “change” because it never approved slavery to BEGIN WITH.

It is statements like those of that priest which are most troubling. Here are ordained men who supposedly know and believe the teachings of the Catholic Church who quite obviously do NOT know, or do not ACCEPT, those teachings, and are handing on AS Church teaching things which are not Church teachings, or denying as Church teachings things which truly ARE Church teachings.

Ahimsa, again the Church (which is the Body of Christ) has NO AUTHORITY to ordain women, because to do so would be to change the UNCHANGEABLE teaching. It would be like suddenly saying that God was no longer Father, Son, and Spirit, because we were going to add Mary into the equation in order to promote “gender equity”.

When it comes to dogma and to defined doctrine held as magesterium teaching or defined infallibly taught teachings, there is no “change”. . .and there never will be.

JP2 did not “make” the subject of women’s ordination a moot issue. It was made a moot issue by Christ Himself, just as the idea of a 4-in-one God was made a moot issue by God Himself making it clear that there is a TRIUNE God. When were these teachings made? In the deposit of faith which has been overseen by the Holy Spirit Himself. . .just as was promised to the Churchh.
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
Shouldn’t it be: the Church has the authority to ordain women, but the Church has decided not to do so?
Click to expand...
As well, remember the Church’s views on men and women-

Women are charged with the “Biological” care of the human race, that is, they have the sacred task of giving birth and continuing on the human race.

Men have the Spiritual care of the human race, that of the priesthood. The Church saying it is alright for there to be women priests is no more outlandish then them saying it is alright for men to give birth. They simply cannot do either.
 
40.png
TEME525:
Pius, I think that the answer to your discussion with the good priest, lies in the study of the Sacraments rather than in scripture.

In Catholic understanding of the Sacraments the Sign or I perfer the work Symbol is extremely important. So important that if there is the proper symbol there is no Sacrament (can’t have the Eucharist with out bread and wine - can’t have Baptism without water etc.)

In regards to the Priesthood, the “Maleness” of the Priest is an important sign. This may be a strech and may be rejected, but ask your priest, if Christ is the Bridegroom of the Church doesn’t this make necassary that the Preist through whom Christ is acting must be male because of it’s smybolism - or perhaps your priest also advocating women bridegroom?
Click to expand...
This is a good post… There are a number of different vantage points from which to approach this topic. On a simple level, for example, one can ask which of the twelve appostles was a woman? If no one, then why should this be the way we do it today? What has changed? On a deeper level, the great Anglican writer C.S. Lewis warned his ailing denomination that it was going too far in the ordination of women and other church practices in “The Fern Seed and the Elephant” and “Priestesses in the Church?”. He makes some excellent points and emphasizes the need for the priest in a sacramental church to be a man, but I am afraid I can’t remember the deeper details of the essays right now. Bottom line, there is no reason to change horses in the middle of the river. We need more people in the holy orders, but this doesn’t mean we should change the standards for our priests.
 
Thank you all for your replies and comments on the matter, just to clarify, I do not agree with the Priest’s view on women ordination.

It was my understanding that GOD became MAN in Jesus Christ and not a woman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top