Question about ordination of women

[justme]

I gave you a good answer on why women can’t be priests, and you chose to ignore it. You didn’t even try and discount my argument, you just simply passed over it.

There’s no point in us doing this if you’re just going to discount and ignore every argument that doesn’t give you the answer you want.

You are right. Sorry I did read your post and thought it was a good one. I just lost it in the other nonsense that was happening and got sidetracked away from it.

Titus is thought to have been a Gentile since Paul refused to have him circumcised. He was a 1st century Bishop (according to tradition).

Yes Titus might have been a Gentile, most likely he was, but that does not change the fact that the Apostles chosen by Jesus were Jews, which I believe is what the other poster’s argument was about.

Now on to your first reply.

Women lack the essence of Maleness.

So your saying that the essence of Maleness is necessary for ordiantion but that it is in no way an intrinsic part of the soul thereby making it a different nature from that of women?

Yes, it’s Sex. A priest must be male to imitate the Father and Jesus who is the giver of grace (gifts). The priest gives the people the Sacraments.

Yet a woman gives life to her child.

Think about sex for a minute (not too long). In the sexual act, the male gives the female the gift (sperm in this case) in order to begin a new life. A priest must be male in order to intrinsically possess this maleness, the ability to give the gift. Females intrinsically lack this ability and it’s not something (not so far as I’m aware) that we can surgically implant or change. Before anyone jumps on me, I’m not saying this makes women inferior, it just means that we’re different. God created the biology, not me.

I touched on this a few posts ago. While a man does give his sperm to a woman, she gives the egg. It all depends on how you look at it.

As I said in another thread, I’ve heard some theological hypothesis’ that a man who is a priest should be able to ordinarily perform sexually (ie. not be impotent or sterilized).

(I believe this was all from Theology of the Body. I don’t know if it was in Bl. JPII’s originals or if it was a Christopher West extension, but it makes total sense. Also, it’s a good reminder about why we take sex so seriously. Also, as I believe West pointed out, Women are actually a better representation of humankind because we all receive gifts of grace from God; it’s why the snake went after Eve).

So then if this is so a man should have a fertility test and other sexual function tests to prove that he is capable of fathering a child. Any priest who loses any of this must then lose the priesthood.

That is if ordination is so attached to the sexual act.

 

[justme]

I thought I was answering your question. It is not just an act of the will obediece, no one in the CHurch has the ability to ordain women.

If you are looking for some theological speculation as to WHY Christ choose not to give the CHurch the authority to ordain women, will this help

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9159931&postcount=113

Go back and read my first post.

I am not asking about the authority. I am asking about the nature of ordination and why it can not be confered on a woman.

 

[saveusfromhell]

what a rude poster you are

 

[adrift]

Jesus was a Jew - no if’s, ands or buts about it.
The priest, in certain instances, acts in persona Christi, where he (the priest) and Jesus become one and the same

Being male or female is not so important that it defines people. This seems simple to me!

If I were to make a movie about George Washington, than I would pick a white man. A woman would not be able to play the part. It would not matter about her talents. The man chosen would not need to be a surveyor nor would he need to be wealthy and own slaves. Those would be incidentals but he would have to be male as that would be germane to the person. If a man is a Jew, carpenter, etc is not germane to the person. Those can be changed. If you are male or female cannot be changed, despite those who try. Sex change operation does not truly change the sex. It only mutilates the body giving an outward false identification. They cannot change their DNA. A priest cannot be female that is what God ordained from the beginning.
Being Male or Female is intrinsic to the being of a person. How you state that it doesn’t define a person is :shrug:beyond me. It defines the way you think and act. It is the most defining thing about a person.

What is it that makes a woman unable to be ordained?

All of the Sacraments, find their roots in the Old Testament which Jesus came to fulfill.

The priesthood then can be found first in the Old Testament. God began the priesthood with the tribe of Levi not the daughters but the sons. The Israelites were surrounded by priestesses. To suggest that they were all men ignores this fact and one other. God is not impotent. God does what He wills. If He had wanted priestesses it would have been done with the Levites . Jesus would have than followed suit by naming a woman Apostle. Jesus was not powerless and often went against the norms. It was His Father who established the norm of men.

The answer your question is that it is the will of God. Just as it was the will of God that earth was created. Why don’t men have babies? Why don’t we have two suns? Why did God do anything He does? I do not know that anyone has the answer other than it is the will of God.

 

[Brendan]

Go back and read my first post.

I am not asking about the authority. I am asking about the nature of ordination and why it can not be confered on a woman.

Did you read my link, I addressed that in there.

But the question of authority still remains. It falls into the category of why the priest confect other matter than wheat bread and grape wine into the Eucharist.

The only answer the Church can give is that it can only do what it has the authority to do. Sure Christ can change prezels and beer into His Body and Blood, but the Church cannot.

Likewise, Christ could ordain a woman to the priesthood, but the Church cannot.

Since that decision was made by Christ, the only true answer must come from Him. All we can do as humans is speculate.

The link has some standard theological\philisophical reasons as to why not.

 

[saveusfromhell]

You really need to read the posts fully.
if you wish to go on pontificating I would prefer you do it elsewhere.

I just lost it in the other nonsense that was happening and got sidetracked away from it

what a rude poster you are

 

[Hokomai]

If I were to make a movie about George Washington, than I would pick a white man. A woman would not be able to play the part. .

So on the basis of your logic, an African, or a Chinese or a Papuan or a Pigmy can not become a priest? You say sex is different from religion or occupation because they can be changed. what about the race issue, as you have raised it? And what about amputees, or paraplegics? Can they represent Jesus? And if they can, why can’t a woman? What is so special about being male or female? Please note that as an unbeliever I do not have a horse in this race. I am entirely happy that religions appoint whoever they like to their priesthoods. I am merely challenging the logic used in order that I can better understand others’ beliefs.

 

[adrift]

So on the basis of your logic, an African, or a Chinese or a Papuan or a Pigmy can not become a priest? You say sex is different from religion or occupation because they can be changed. what about the race issue, as you have raised it? And what about amputees, or paraplegics? Can they represent Jesus? And if they can, why can’t a woman? What is so special about being male or female? Please note that as an unbeliever I do not have a horse in this race. I am entirely happy that religions appoint whoever they like to their priesthoods. I am merely challenging the logic used in order that I can better understand others’ beliefs.

I don’t know where you get your logic but it doesn’t follow mine. You are the one who is presenting that being male does not matter. God differes with you. He chose only men. Jesus taught the Apostles and they conveyed what God wishes. What you bring up is merely a red herring.

 

[LilyM]

But they were Jews. So while part of the argument may fail not all of it does, so it is in no way an epic logic fail.

I already said that Jesus told the Samarian woman that being a Jew (ie worshipping in Jerusalem) as opposed to being a non-Jew (worshipping as the Samaritans did - they were not considered by the Jews to beJewish) was UNimportant. This was in response to her question as to where people should worship - ie whether you needed to be Jewish or not.

So yes He chose Jews, but His own words indicate that Jewishness didn’t matter, like being less than 7 ft tall didn’t matter, and the apostles were all certainly less than 7 ft tall!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Right. In the end (and this is what is hardest for the ‘modern’ person to understand or accept), God established a male-only priesthood (with the Jews), even though the cultures of the times actually had priestesses more than not. However the role of the priestess was more historically based not on a ‘god’ relationship but back to the fact that the earliest ceremonies and rituals in civilizations (themselves established with the development of agriculture which was earliest assigned to women while men were hunter/gatherers) were made and performed by women as the men were doing other things.

Now if the priesthood was something that was no more or less a role than communicating with God or performing rites, then why did God limit it to men, when already there were instances of women doing that communication/rites, and doing it well? God isn’t stupid and God is not ‘bound’ by societal behaviors.

God has taught, through His Church, that the Church has no AUTHORITY to ordain women. We’ve tried to understand it based on the working of the Holy Spirit and on various THEORIES, but in the end, it comes down to what God has said and done.

Either we believe Him–or we don’t.
If we do, we don’t have a problem with what He teaches when it runs ‘counter’ to established ‘wisdom’. This, after all, is the God who sent His Son to suffer, die and rise for humanity. How 'REASONABLE" is that? How BELIEVABLE is that?

If we don’t, then nothing that a person has to say in support of the teaching will matter, because we have already set ourselves up in judgment and found God ‘unbelievable.’ And once we start to doubt His teaching in one place, we will doubt it in others, and in the end, we no longer believe in God, but only in our own selves.

 

[justme]

If I were to make a movie about George Washington, than I would pick a white man. A woman would not be able to play the part. It would not matter about her talents. The man chosen would not need to be a surveyor nor would he need to be wealthy and own slaves. Those would be incidentals but he would have to be male as that would be germane to the person. If a man is a Jew, carpenter, etc is not germane to the person. Those can be changed. If you are male or female cannot be changed, despite those who try. Sex change operation does not truly change the sex. It only mutilates the body giving an outward false identification. They cannot change their DNA. A priest cannot be female that is what God ordained from the beginning.
Being Male or Female is intrinsic to the being of a person. How you state that it doesn’t define a person is :shrug:beyond me. It defines the way you think and act. It is the most defining thing about a person.

But your argument actually falls apart here and you argue for exactly what you think you are arguing against.

You said that in this film about George Washington you would pick a white (by this I assume you mean caucasian) male. You state that his being a surveyor, wealthy and owning slaves are incidentals and the actor would not have to have such but you do admit that it would have to be a caucasian male. A male of a certain race.

So your argument then supports the idea that Jewish (a semetic race) is intrinsic, at least with this argument you seem to.

All of the Sacraments, find their roots in the Old Testament which Jesus came to fulfill.

The priesthood then can be found first in the Old Testament. God began the priesthood with the tribe of Levi not the daughters but the sons. The Israelites were surrounded by priestesses. To suggest that they were all men ignores this fact and one other. God is not impotent. God does what He wills. If He had wanted priestesses it would have been done with the Levites . Jesus would have than followed suit by naming a woman Apostle. Jesus was not powerless and often went against the norms. It was His Father who established the norm of men.

Yes, then why not the Levite priesthood for Catholicism as well, which is what you tried to argue against above but ended up supporting.

The answer your question is that it is the will of God. Just as it was the will of God that earth was created. Why don’t men have babies? Why don’t we have two suns? Why did God do anything He does? I do not know that anyone has the answer other than it is the will of God.

This is the argument from authority. It is that way because God said so.

That is fine and I believe it becasue of that, but that is only because I am forcing my will to believe it. It is not because that belief has been formed by my reason. God gave us intelect and reason. We can surely come up with better reasons that “just because he said so”.

 

[justme]

I already said that Jesus told the Samarian woman that being a Jew (ie worshipping in Jerusalem) as opposed to being a non-Jew (worshipping as the Samaritans did - they were not considered by the Jews to beJewish) was UNimportant. This was in response to her question as to where people should worship - ie whether you needed to be Jewish or not.

So yes He chose Jews, but His own words indicate that Jewishness didn’t matter, like being less than 7 ft tall didn’t matter, and the apostles were all certainly less than 7 ft tall!

Okay so then we are going with what Jesus said rather than what he did. He said jewishness was unimportant but he picked only jews to be his apostles.

So where does he say that sex matters? You opened this door. I never thought in this way.

 

[justme]

Right. In the end (and this is what is hardest for the ‘modern’ person to understand or accept), God established a male-only priesthood (with the Jews), even though the cultures of the times actually had priestesses more than not. However the role of the priestess was more historically based not on a ‘god’ relationship but back to the fact that the earliest ceremonies and rituals in civilizations (themselves established with the development of agriculture which was earliest assigned to women while men were hunter/gatherers) were made and performed by women as the men were doing other things.

Now if the priesthood was something that was no more or less a role than communicating with God or performing rites, then why did God limit it to men, when already there were instances of women doing that communication/rites, and doing it well? God isn’t stupid and God is not ‘bound’ by societal behaviors.

God has taught, through His Church, that the Church has no AUTHORITY to ordain women. We’ve tried to understand it based on the working of the Holy Spirit and on various THEORIES, but in the end, it comes down to what God has said and done.

Either we believe Him–or we don’t.
If we do, we don’t have a problem with what He teaches when it runs ‘counter’ to established ‘wisdom’. This, after all, is the God who sent His Son to suffer, die and rise for humanity. How 'REASONABLE" is that? How BELIEVABLE is that?

If we don’t, then nothing that a person has to say in support of the teaching will matter, because we have already set ourselves up in judgment and found God ‘unbelievable.’ And once we start to doubt His teaching in one place, we will doubt it in others, and in the end, we no longer believe in God, but only in our own selves.

As I said. I beleive because the Church as the authority and says that it can not do this.

I am trying to reconcile the logic thourgh the questions I have asked.

It seems that only a couple of people wish to even try to address the actual questions rather than addressing their own issues.

 

[Hokomai]

I don’t know where you get your logic but it doesn’t follow mine. You are the one who is presenting that being male does not matter. God differes with you. He chose only men. Jesus taught the Apostles and they conveyed what God wishes. What you bring up is merely a red herring.

You used the analogy of casting for a movie as a comparison with the process of determining fitness for the priesthood. You pointed out that if casting an actor to play George Washington, you would choose a white male. On the same basis, by analogy, you argued, only men can be priests. So, naturally, I asked (indirectly) “why can people who are not white be priests”. The logic is yours, not mine, and I did not bring it up - you did. You should defend your position.

 

[justme]

Did you read my link, I addressed that in there.

But the question of authority still remains. It falls into the category of why the priest confect other matter than wheat bread and grape wine into the Eucharist.

The only answer the Church can give is that it can only do what it has the authority to do. Sure Christ can change prezels and beer into His Body and Blood, but the Church cannot.

Likewise, Christ could ordain a woman to the priesthood, but the Church cannot.

Since that decision was made by Christ, the only true answer must come from Him. All we can do as humans is speculate.

The link has some standard theological\philisophical reasons as to why not.

Yes I read your link. It is to a single reply by you in some other thread. It has no source information so all I can do is take it as your thoughts.

None of it addresses the questions I raised in the first post.

 

[Brendan]

Yes I read your link. It is to a single reply by you in some other thread. It has no source information so all I can do is take it as your thoughts.

None of it addresses the questions I raised in the first post.

Someone’s thoughts are all you will ever really get.

What it boils down to is that Christ did not give the Church the authority, nor did He give us a reason for not giving us the authority.

If you are looking for a specific answer, that answer will have to come from Christ Himself.

Other than that, what you will get is simply speculation on someone’s part.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

What is it that makes a woman unable to be ordained?

Probably because a good share of them would struggle to see over the altar.

 

[Anna_Claire]

While this may be true for some, it is not true for me.

Also I fail to see how this advances the discussion. It appears to be more of a gratuitous comment that really has no place on a charitable forum especially in a thread asking for actual discussion to understand a Church teaching.

If you really have nothing to add that advances the discussion maybe you should be self censoring.

True enough…I apologize…can Brendan do the same?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Someone’s thoughts are all you will ever really get.

What it boils down to is that Christ did not give the Church the authority, nor did He give us a reason for not giving us the authority.

If you are looking for a specific answer, that answer will have to come from Christ Himself.

Other than that, what you will get is simply speculation on someone’s part.

Okay so there is really nothing out there that talks about ordination and why a woman’s spirit can not have the ontological change happen to it?

There is nothing to speak to men and women having the same human nature but that there is something different in men and women that allows an ordination to take place with one but not the other?

I do not deny that women can not be priests. If the attempt is made it is invalid. I was looking to the why’s of this, not in any way denying that it is so.

 

[justme]

Someone’s thoughts are all you will ever really get.
What it boils down to is that Christ did not give the Church the authority, nor did He give us a reason for not giving us the authority.
If you are looking for a specific answer, that answer will have to come from Christ Himself.
Other than that, what you will get is simply speculation on someone’s part.

Okay so there is really nothing out there that talks about ordination and why a woman’s spirit can not have the ontological change happen to it?

There is nothing to speak to men and women having the same human nature but that there is something different in men and women that allows an ordination to take place with one but not the other?
I
do not deny that women can not be priests. If the attempt is made it is invalid. I was looking to the why’s of this, not in any way denying that it is so.