Question about ordination of women

[justme]

See first response on my first post… that’s what is basically taught for the overall reason

See scripture that i quoted in first quote… this parallel is what helps us understand that God has his priesthood in both the tribes and the Church.

Again, this does not address the questions asked.

To answer this one, i think someone already said it but Priests become “Alter Christo” or “one of Christ”. This basically means that since Jesus was a man, it is better to have a man in the place of Christ because Christ was a man.

Alter Christus just means “another Christ”, not “one of Christ”. We are all called to be “another Christ”.

So if it is better to have a man in place of Christ becuase Christ was a man then are you saying that there is something about either male genitalia or the Y chromosone that is necessary to be a priest? or are you saying that there is something spiritually different and therefore a difference in the natures of a man and a woman which would mean that Christ having the nature of a man can not be the savior of women?

 

[Bballer32]

Again, this does not address the questions asked.

Alter Christus just means “another Christ”, not “one of Christ”. We are all called to be “another Christ”.

So if it is better to have a man in place of Christ becuase Christ was a man then are you saying that there is something about either male genitalia or the Y chromosone that is necessary to be a priest? or are you saying that there is something spiritually different and therefore a difference in the natures of a man and a woman which would mean that Christ having the nature of a man can not be the savior of women?

Did you not read the verse yet?

It clearly states a PARALLEL about why humans that do not have the “manhood parts” may not serve in the house of God… That clearly answers part of the physical proportions

 

[justme]

Did you not read the verse yet?

It clearly states a PARALLEL about why humans that do not have the “manhood parts” may not serve in the house of God… That clearly answers part of the physical proportions

I am sorry but you are wrong.

[BIBLEDRB]Deuteronomy 23:1[/BIBLEDRB]

Clearly states that such a man may not enter a house of God.

Regardless though, this is not how it is today. Such a man may enter a Church and may even be ordained. They are not impeded in any way from it under the current Code of Canon Law.

 

[japhy]

In persona Christi means in the person of Christ. Not the body of Christ (in corpus Christi). Personhood and Body are two different things. If it is in the body of Christ then I can see only those sharing his body could do so but personhood is not dependant on the accidents of the body.

So this brings up what is intrinsically different between the person of a female and the person of a male and does that mean that their souls/spirits are different and if it does then how can Christ save females as well as males when the souls/spirits (and there by natures) are different?

Jesus’ Personhood includes His identity as God the Son / the Son of God. He is not merely “God the Child” or “God the Offspring” but “God the Son”. This is not to say that God the Son, outside of His incarnation, is a male, but Sonship denotes something different from Daughtership or Childship. It emphasizes masculinity over femininity. Now, masculinity and femininity are not restricted to males and females respectively, but they are naturally characteristics of males and females respectively. Since grace builds upon nature, it seems fitting that the grace of the ministerial priesthood (as opposed to the baptismal priesthood) should build upon what is natural: the masculinity of the Son points naturally to males rather than females.

 

[Hokomai]

OK, I am going to toake a stab at this!!

As a woman, *who at one time *supported the women’s ordination movement, for me this is very simple, now.

Jesus was a man- no if’s, and’s or but’s about it.
The priest, in certain instances, acts in persona Christi, where he (the priest) and Jesus become one and the same
Since I am not a man, I can never achieve that status.
I can try to model my behavior after His, and be “Christ-like”
but I cannot, ever, as a woman, act as the person of Christ.

When you really think about it, it seems pretty simple to me!

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
Since I am not a Jew, I can never achieve that status.
I can try to model my behavior after His, and be “Christ-like”
but I cannot, ever, as a gentile, act as the person of Christ.

Jesus was a carpenter - no ifs, 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
Since I am not a carpenter, I can never achieve that status.
I can try to model my behavior after His, and be “Christ-like”
but I cannot, ever, as a plumber, act as the person of Christ.

Jesus was an itinerant- no ifs, 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
Since I have a fixed abode, I can never achieve that status.
I can try to model my behavior after His, and be “Christ-like”
but I cannot, ever, as a homeowner, act as the person of Christ.

Jesus was a native speaker of Aramaic - no ifs, 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
Since I am not a speaker of Aramaic, I can never achieve that status.
I can try to model my behavior after His, and be “Christ-like”
but I cannot, ever, as someone who does not speak Aramaic as a mother tongue, act as the person of Christ.

Jesus was a God - no ifs, 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
Since I am not a God, I can never achieve that status.
I can try to model my behavior after His, and be “Christ-like”
but I cannot, ever, as a creature, act as the person of Christ.

Jesus was born of a virgin - no ifs, 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
Since my mother was not a virgin, I can never achieve that status.
I can try to model my behavior after His, and be “Christ-like”
but I cannot, ever, as someone born as a result of sexual relations, act as the person of Christ.

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

 

[Brofessor]

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
Since I am not a Jew, I can never achieve that status.
I can try to model my behavior after His, and be “Christ-like”
but I cannot, ever, as a gentile, act as the person of Christ.

Jesus was a carpenter - no ifs, 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
Since I am not a carpenter, I can never achieve that status.
I can try to model my behavior after His, and be “Christ-like”
but I cannot, ever, as a plumber, act as the person of Christ.

Jesus was an itinerant- no ifs, 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
Since I have a fixed abode, I can never achieve that status.
I can try to model my behavior after His, and be “Christ-like”
but I cannot, ever, as a homeowner, act as the person of Christ.

Jesus was a native speaker of Aramaic - no ifs, 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
Since I am not a speaker of Aramaic, I can never achieve that status.
I can try to model my behavior after His, and be “Christ-like”
but I cannot, ever, as someone who does not speak Aramaic as a mother tongue, act as the person of Christ.

Jesus was a God - no ifs, 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
Since I am not a God, I can never achieve that status.
I can try to model my behavior after His, and be “Christ-like”
but I cannot, ever, as a creature, act as the person of Christ.

Jesus was born of a virgin - no ifs, 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
Since my mother was not a virgin, I can never achieve that status.
I can try to model my behavior after His, and be “Christ-like”
but I cannot, ever, as someone born as a result of sexual relations, act as the person of Christ.

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

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This is perfectly worded! The Church teaches that gender is, as you say, “so important that it defines people”. This is where I differ so strongly that I currently go to an Episcopal church. The women I’ve met who serve as priests therein seem to do their job every bit as well as their male counterparts. It’s Jesus’ humanness that’s important, not his maleness.

Bravo!

 

[LilyM]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/applause.gif
This is perfectly worded! The Church teaches that gender is, as you say, “so important that it defines people”. This is where I differ so strongly that I currently go to an Episcopal church. The women I’ve met who serve as priests therein seem to do their job every bit as well as their male counterparts. It’s Jesus’ humanness that’s important, not his maleness.

Bravo!

Splendid …

Except that Christ chose people to be His Apostles who WERE born of women, who were NOT carpenters, possibly NOT Aramaic speakers (in any event He Himself would have also spoken Hebrew when He read in the synagogue, so it is clear language was not important) - and even said to the Samaritan woman
that worshipping God in Jerusalem v Samaria (ie whether one was Jewish or not) did NOT matter.

But still, extremely pointedly given that the Virgin Mary and the Magdalene are portrayed as infinitely superior creatures to the Apostles, did NOT choose women!

Epic logic fail on both your parts. Thanks for playing though.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Splendid …

But still, extremely pointedly given that the Virgin Mary and the Magdalene are portrayed as infinitely superior creatures to the Apostles, did NOT choose women!

Epic logic fail on both your parts. Thanks for playing though.

the catholic church does not claim that women are inferior to women, in fact BVM is regarded in the highest possible esteem by the church, so much so that it constantly has to explain to other christans that it does not view the BVM as God.
it is you trying to protray the idea that women are less than men because they don’t recieve the vocation of priesthood.
the pharsies expected Jesus to be a King of their understanding. that’s similar to you thinking women are regarded as lesser because of this issue.
obedience on the other hand and sacrifice Jesus loved, do you think christ does not love all sacrifices made on his behalf, looking for “equality” for himself was not Jesus way when he came. on holy thursday at any stage he could have called down legions of angels. on his birth he could have been born into glory.
the one who serves will be first. of course i do not wish to tell women they musr serve but rather it is all of us who must to make ourselves more humble to enter the kingdom

 

[saveusfromhell]

]

the catholic church does not claim that women are inferior to women, in fact BVM is regarded in the highest possible esteem by the church, so much so that it constantly has to explain to other christans that it does not view the BVM as God.
trying to protray the idea that women are less than men because they don’t recieve the vocation of priesthood is incorrect.
the pharsies expected Jesus to be a King of their understanding. that’s similar to thinking women are regarded as lesser because of this issue.
obedience on the other hand and sacrifice Jesus loved, christ loves all sacrifices made on his behalf, looking for “equality” for himself was not Jesus way when he came.
on holy thursday at any stage he could have called down legions of angels.
on his birth he could have been born into glory. instead he always choose to be humble even onto death.

the one who serves will be first. of course i do not wish to tell women they must serve but rather it is all of us who must to make ourselves more humble to enter the kingdom

 

[Brendan]

All good questions that will never go away…regardless of Church teachings.

True, some people are so thick heading that they refuse to accept the valid teachings of the Church.

 

[Anna_Claire]

True, some people are so thick heading that they refuse to accept the valid teachings of the Church.

That is very true…I see that often here.

 

[justme]

Splendid …

Except that Christ chose people to be His Apostles who WERE born of women, who were NOT carpenters, possibly NOT Aramaic speakers (in any event He Himself would have also spoken Hebrew when He read in the synagogue, so it is clear language was not important) - and even said to the Samaritan woman
that worshipping God in Jerusalem v Samaria (ie whether one was Jewish or not) did NOT matter.

But still, extremely pointedly given that the Virgin Mary and the Magdalene are portrayed as infinitely superior creatures to the Apostles, did NOT choose women!

Epic logic fail on both your parts. Thanks for playing though.

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.

 

[justme]

True, some people are so thick heading that they refuse to accept the valid teachings of the Church.

That is very true…I see that often here.

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.

 

[Bballer32]

I am sorry but you are wrong.

[BIBLEDRB]Deuteronomy 23:1[/BIBLEDRB]

Clearly states that such a man may not enter a house of God.

Regardless though, this is not how it is today. Such a man may enter a Church and may even be ordained. They are not impeded in any way from it under the current Code of Canon Law.

Well, a eunuch cannot became a priest, only a deacon. This is because he can not have the urge to procreate since he is not able to. This takes away the practice of celibacy.

Women are not the ones that give the creation. God, our Father, gave creation. Men give creation because that is how we are created. So, the practice of Priestly celibacy is not able to be achieve by a women.

 

[justme]

Well, a eunuch cannot became a priest, only a deacon. This is because he can not have the urge to procreate since he is not able to. This takes away the practice of celibacy.

The Church does not teach that. There is no such impediment listed in the Code of Canon Law for ordination.

Women are not the ones that give the creation. God, our Father, gave creation. Men give creation because that is how we are created. So, the practice of Priestly celibacy is not able to be achieve by a women.

Give creation? We are all created in the likeness of God. We all have the capablitly to create. I do not understand this “give creation” idea as it applies to procreation (which is what I assume you are talking about) as a woman gives the egg.

Just so you are aware there are no fertility tests or any other sexual function tests given to those men applying for the priesthood.

 

[Brendan]

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.

It has a lot of bearing on the question. The Chuch has stated that it recieved no authority from God to ordain women.

So it really doesn’t matter if someone comes up with the best reason in the world that women should be ordained, no one in the Church could actually DO it.

It would be like me asking the mayor of my town to grant me the deed to all of Canada. I could have the best reason in the world to own Canada, but the mayor of my town does not have the authority to grant that to me. It is not his to grant, he does not have the power to grant what I am asking.

Likewise, the Church cannot ordain women to the priesthood. It is not within the realm of power that Christ gave to the Church.

 

[curlycool89]

So this brings up what is intrinsically different between the person of a female and the person of a male and does that mean that their souls/spirits are different and if it does then how can Christ save females as well as males when the souls/spirits (and there by natures) are different?

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.

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.

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

 

[justme]

It has a lot of bearing on the question. The Chuch has stated that it recieved no authority from God to ordain women.

So it really doesn’t matter if someone comes up with the best reason in the world that women should be ordained, no one in the Church could actually DO it.

It would be like me asking the mayor of my town to grant me the deed to all of Canada. I could have the best reason in the world to own Canada, but the mayor of my town does not have the authority to grant that to me. It is not his to grant, he does not have the power to grant what I am asking.

Likewise, the Church cannot ordain women to the priesthood. It is not within the realm of power that Christ gave to the Church.

You really need to read the posts fully.

No where did I say that was looking for a reason why women should be ordained. I have already stated that I beleive what the Church teaches.

I am trying to form my reason and knowledge to hold to what the Church teaches rather than this belief being nothing more than an act of will.

It appears that you are of the “shut up and just do it” school of thought. That may work for some but it does not work for me.

Now if you care to address the questions I asked then great, if you wish to go on pontificating I would prefer you do it elsewhere.

 

[saveusfromhell]

You really need to read the posts fully.

No where did I say that was looking for a reason why women should be ordained. I have already stated that I beleive what the Church teaches.

I am trying to form my reason and knowledge to hold to what the Church teaches rather than this belief being nothing more than an act of will.

It appears that you are of the “shut up and just do it” school of thought. That may work for some but it does not work for me.

Now if you care to address the questions I asked then great, if you wish to go on pontificating I would prefer you do it elsewhere.

the church can not change rules nor make them up as it goes along, every thing has to be found in scripture or in sacred tradition, if you can find women ordained in the bible i’m sure the church would be delighted to change it’s view.
when divine mercy sunday was introduced, it needed to be justified from scripture and or tradition.
it’s as much a case as why should as why not women become priests especially because the BVM was not a priest.

 

[Brendan]

It appears that you are of the “shut up and just do it” school of thought. That may work for some but it does not work for me.

Now if you care to address the questions I asked then great, if you wish to go on pontificating I would prefer you do it elsewhere.

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