Question about ordination of women

[Brendan]

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?

That was something that Christ has never chosen to reveal to us. Without that specific revelation, we can really do nothing. Thus, as to why the ontological change cannot occur all any of us can do is speculate.

In that link that I provided, most of that was based on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas
, specifically his Summa Theologica. It describes a lot on the nature of the soul, specifically on the relationship between Body and Soul and how the Body is the Form of the Soul. In that we can see that, since there are differences in our bodies, there must exist differences in our souls.

Ido 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.

I understand, the point I was trying to drive to is that we have no real way of understanding. Reason can only guide us through so much. After that, it becomes simly trust in God.

Also, I would hesitate to say that this is an ‘argument from authority’. In many ways, it is kind of the reverse. It is simply a lack of authority to do otherwise.

 

[Brendan]

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

I most certainly do. Hopefully that you and justme can see I was actually trying to contribute

 

[adrift]

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.

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

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”.

There are incidentals that don’t mattter. In the case of George Washington, that he is white is a fact. The example was an imperfect one. That Jesus was a man is essential. That He was Jewish or a carpentar did not impact His maleness. Everything you mentioned didn’t make them less of a man. A man is a man if he has one leg, is Jewish or anything else you can throw a red herring at. Yeah it is this way because God willed it that way. God is in control not you not me. He makes the rules. It is like saying why is murder wrong or stealing or not keeping the sabath or Sunday Holy. The only authority is God.

 

[curlycool89]

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?

Do you believe that priest lack a physical body?

You want to know something funny? There is no need for priests in Heaven. Sure, the priests will still have the indelible mark on their soul (same as baptism or confirmation), but they’re “job” to minister to the people of God is largely done when it comes to sacraments.

You know who will still be different in Heaven? Religious, like nuns. They make their vows “for forever”. I don’t know what that will mean, but living the Evangelical Councils (poverty, chastity, and obedience) is actually the holiest way of life (the most perfect way of living), and that is open to everyone.

Also, we’re still male and female. I can’t replace a man with a women in sexual intercourse and expect to see a baby (protip: it’s impossible).

Yet a woman gives life to her child.

I’m not sure if you’re trying to make a biological or other argument, but in any case that it false.

A women cannot spontaneously give life to a child. Yes, the women provides the egg for fertilization, but she does this once a month (or whatever it is. I’m a guy, I don’t pay attention to what the timing is). It is only once the man gives the sperm that a life starts.

Look at it this way. We as people can go and yell at God all we want randomly or in a regular pattern or whatever. But God will ultimately decide when/if He decided to answer us. It’s the same thing, no matter what a women will release an egg, but it doesn’t have any effect until the man gives the sperm.

You can yell at God all you want, but it won’t make a different until/if God answers. You can go the church all you want, but you can’t receive the Eucharist until the priest consecrates it.

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.

Read above. There’s no new life until the sperm either, it’s just an egg (not even a life at that point because it only contains 23 chromosomes).

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.

Like I said, it’s theologians hypothesizing at this point. It’s an interesting idea to say the least, and wraps several different ideas together.

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.

If you want a very serious example of that, look at Johannes Kepler. Genius astronomer, but we like to gloss over the part where he spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out why there were exactly 6 planets and not 5 or 7 (at his time only 6 had been discovered). He tried to delve into the mind of “God the mathematician” to try and find an elegant answer, but of course there isn’t one. Some things are just mysteries.

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

Jesus superseded the Levitical priesthood by ordaining the apostles at the Last Supper (off-topic: it’s why He washed their feet actually, which is why it’s suppose to be men-only).

I understand, the point I was trying to drive to is that we have no real way of understanding. Reason can only guide us through so much. After that, it becomes simly trust in God.

Yep. We really like to know and have control over everything. Sometimes you just need to give it up to God and trust. We can’t rely on ourselves for everything, it just doesn’t work. It’s hard to give that trust to another, but we have to try our best.

 

[justme]

Do you believe that priest lack a physical body?

So are you saying that there is some physical part of the males body that must be present for ordination?

You want to know something funny? There is no need for priests in Heaven. Sure, the priests will still have the indelible mark on their soul (same as baptism or confirmation), but they’re “job” to minister to the people of God is largely done when it comes to sacraments.

You know who will still be different in Heaven? Religious, like nuns. They make their vows “for forever”. I don’t know what that will mean, but living the Evangelical Councils (poverty, chastity, and obedience) is actually the holiest way of life (the most perfect way of living), and that is open to everyone.

Religious men also make such vows. Some of them are priests as well.

Also, we’re still male and female. I can’t replace a man with a women in sexual intercourse and expect to see a baby (protip: it’s impossible).

I’m not sure if you’re trying to make a biological or other argument, but in any case that it false.

Its no more false than saying a man gives life or creates a child. With out the egg and the womb there is no child regardless of how much a man gives.

A women cannot spontaneously give life to a child. Yes, the women provides the egg for fertilization, but she does this once a month (or whatever it is. I’m a guy, I don’t pay attention to what the timing is). It is only once the man gives the sperm that a life starts.

Just as no sperm spontaneously give life to a child.

Jesus superseded the Levitical priesthood by ordaining the apostles at the Last Supper (off-topic: it’s why He washed their feet actually, which is why it’s suppose to be men-only).

I have heard a couple of theologians who state that there is no ordination at the last supper. I do find that a bit doubious. Would you have any sources to the Church that state that the Last Supper is an ordination?

 

[Balian]

As a new Catholic it breaks my heart that this topic continually comes up. It seems to me such a simple question that people with agendas insist on making unnecessarily complicated. It has nothing to do with sexuality or body parts. It certainly is not a sexist issue.

Long before women in this country and most every other country, had the right to vote and the many other rights women now enjoy, Catholic women enjoyed much more equal treatment. Many of them who held responsible positions like managing hospitals, schools, and other social institutions have been canonized for dedicating their lives to serving mankind.

The long tradition of women holding leadership positions in the Church continues today. In my home parish, women fill almost all of the important leadership positions.

Ordination to the priesthood does remain reserved for men. Pope John Paul II thoroughly explained this when he said the Church has no authority to ordain women priests. He went on to explain that Christ himself gave us the example of male only priests. While women were certainly involved in Christ’s earthly ministry, he did not call them as disciples. Pope John Paul II was wise and he was correct is stating that the Church has no power to deviate from what Jesus decided for us. The opinions of the vocal group of people who continue to insist that women should be ordained mean nothing to God. He isn’t subject to human theories of social engineering.

Women have unlimited opportunities to serve the Church aside from the priesthood. Only the roles are different. The Church always needs leaders, both women and men, willing to give God their time and talents. Anyone with the desire and the leading of God to fill a leadership role in the Church can do so.

Just because other denominations have conceded to secular demands and have ordained women doesn’t mean Catholics have to cave as well. I feel as if I have come home by converting to the Catholic Church and I accept the teachings of the Church and the authority of the Pope. If, by some miracle, worldly people ever succeed in forcing the Church to change a core teaching and women start being ordained to the priesthood, I would consider that error and would be forced to leave. We don’t have a right to mold the Church in our own image just to suit our own personal preferences or agendas.

 

[pilots13]

How do we know Christ never called a woman to be a disciple? He called 70 unidentified people to be disciples. Do we know none of them were women? We don’t even know for certain who the 12 are. One Gospel calls them all by name, but then another has one name different, and another only actually names 9, and how do we know the other 3 weren’t women?

 

[curlycool89]

So are you saying that there is some physical part of the males body that must be present for ordination?

What you’re trying to do really is try and split the body-soul. As others have said, you can’t separate them. A man is a man by virtue of his biology. And by virtue of this biology he has the essence of Maleness.

Its no more false than saying a man gives life or creates a child. With out the egg and the womb there is no child regardless of how much a man gives.

Just as no sperm spontaneously give life to a child.

And without the People of God there’s no point in the Sacraments that the priest gives.

The point is that the Male is the initiator. Yes, of course it requires both (priest and people, sperm and egg), but one of them encounters a new reality when it encounters the other. And egg is just an egg until the sperm reaches it and it becomes a embryo/zygote.

We the people of God still exist with or without a priest (as we did before Christ) just as the egg does. “Women” is actually a better metaphor for humankind then men because we are always the recipients of God’s grace.

I have heard a couple of theologians who state that there is no ordination at the last supper. I do find that a bit doubious. Would you have any sources to the Church that state that the Last Supper is an ordination?

Well, they would be wrong. Just plain wrong (or in denial, take your pick).

We celebrate the Chrism Mass each year to commemorate the institution of the priesthood. EWTN has a short article on it. Googling around will find you many sources about it. It’s widely accepted within Catholic theology.

How do we know Christ never called a woman to be a disciple? He called 70 unidentified people to be disciples. Do we know none of them were women? We don’t even know for certain who the 12 are. One Gospel calls them all by name, but then another has one name different, and another only actually names 9, and how do we know the other 3 weren’t women?

Because you have to ignore Tradition and a large amount of theology to get to there. Basically, you just think it is because you like the idea, and no theology or explanation could convince you anyways.

 

[adrift]

How do we know Christ never called a woman to be a disciple? He called 70 unidentified people to be disciples. Do we know none of them were women? We don’t even know for certain who the 12 are. One Gospel calls them all by name, but then another has one name different, and another only actually names 9, and how do we know the other 3 weren’t women?

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia my emphasis.

In the Acts of the Apostles the name disciple is exclusively used to designate the converts, the believers, both men and women

What is being addressed is ordination to the priesthood. Because the Apostles aren’t listed by name in John, does not invalidate the list in the other Gospels. There is some discussion about their names but there is no dispute that they were male. There is no evidence that women ever received ordination as a priestess in the Church.

 

[justme]

What you’re trying to do really is try and split the body-soul. As others have said, you can’t separate them. A man is a man by virtue of his biology. And by virtue of this biology he has the essence of Maleness.

No what I am trying to do is understand this with human nature. We, men and women, share one human nature.

If gender is intrinsic to human nature then there can not be one. It would necessarily be two human natures if that was the case, the male human nature and the female human nature.

And if that is so then Christ only having the male human nature could not possibly be the savior for women. What is not subsumed can not be saved.

Your argument seems to create this need of two human natures.

 

[Alfonsus]

Just a late butt in, I don’t know if my contribution somehow repeating answer already posted in this thread, since I haven’t read the whole thread yet.

Basing on the Theology of the Body of John Paul II, it is all about the creation of man and woman.
In the beginning, when God created man, He explicitly created male and female as the image and likeness of Himself. It is intended to be male and female as an icon of God self revelation.
From God, life pouring out to his creation. His creation receive that love and reciprocate His love so from within the creation, a new life springs.
Especially, woman, par excellence as an icon of His bride, the Church.
Our biological construction is intended to show this. So in male and female conjugal act, the revelation of Christ and the Church is proclaimed.

By no coincidence, in the whole salvation history, priesthood is seen as an act of fatherhood. It started with Adam, given the task to till and guard the garden of Eden. In the Scripture, the Garden of Eden is the Holy of Holies of the whole cosmos. The temple of Jerusalem was an imitation of this Holy of Holies of creation, at the same time an imitation of Holy of Holies of Heaven.
It was to Adam, the covenant of creation was entrusted. When Eve ate the forbidden fruit, nothing actually happened. But when Adam ate the fruit, their eyes were open and understand their nakedness, they ashamed, sin entered the world. The covenant was broken by Adam disobedience, not Eve.
Thus the Scripture never said that because of Eve man contracted death. It was because of Adam, thus the need of a new Adam to renew the Covenant.

Of course Scripture study will reveal more regarding the intrinsic connection between fatherhood and priesthood. Fatherhood, by design is always part of a male, as motherhood is always an intrinsic feature of a female.

For modern reader, the question of fatherhood and priesthood must do away these exegesis of the Scripture.
Some say that it was a by product of human civilization, of patriarchal culture that Scripture was created that way.
Some say that the symbolism of male and female is an ancient analogy, a matter for us to use familial jargon to try to explain God.

But from the Church point of view, it is the opposite. It is man that is the icon of Trinity, being male and female are the best way God created to project His infinite self to the finite world. Human beings are always a living testament of God self revelation, thus of no coincidence. Thus we have always the moral anchor to say that a person is always a subject worthy of love.

If the other way around is true, we will always have a skewed understanding of God and in the end we try to find our identity from a skewed understanding of self and relationship between human beings. It is disastrous.

Second, if we truly honest to acknowledge that God is the author and director of history, then the whole salvation history is not a coincidence. The difference between male and female, differ in office although equal in dignity, is intended by God design. The history of Israel is intended. The world situation when Jesus became man is not coincidence.

Why Jesus came as a male? Because that era only want to hear a male? Then why don’t wait another few centuries, 21th century for instance where feminism gaining ground?

The Scripture said, “in the fullness of time, God sent Gabriel to Mary of Nazareth.” It is not by coincidence, God is the Lord of history.

Then why Jesus not ask his Mother, most reverend by the whole Church to became priest(ess)? Surely He can institute a new policy since He is God.
Surely the pagan world will welcome that development easily, since priestess are everywhere at that time.
Perhaps the Jews at His time will be scandalized, but hey, even without that Jesus was sentenced to death anyway. What is worse than being killed? Why hesitate?
That He did not do that, means a lot. Revelation is a gift. We receive what God intended to give, not what we wish we receive.

For me Theology of the Body is a logical and convincing explanation of human male/female existence based on Judaic-Christian revelation scheme. Far more convincing than a simple do away “it was a mere product of history.”

 

[curlycool89]

No what I am trying to do is understand this with human nature. We, men and women, share one human nature.

If gender is intrinsic to human nature then there can not be one. It would necessarily be two human natures if that was the case, the male human nature and the female human nature.

And if that is so then Christ only having the male human nature could not possibly be the savior for women. What is not subsumed can not be saved.

Your argument seems to create this need of two human natures.

I can’t answer something like that because I don’t have the philosophical background (my major is actually environmental engineering, so if you want to talk about water I can do much better with that).

It doesn’t really matter though. We’re talking about people in the flesh with a human body, and there are obvious biological differences between man and women. God created us as men or women; in this case it’s not both/and. Men intrinsically have maleness and women intrinsically have femaleness, and they are not wholly or perfectly interchangeable. I suggest you use the Philosophy sub-forum if you want a more detailed discussion on that.

My own personal opinion of what makes someone male or female is what their sexual organs are, which is why my explanation is in terms of sexual intercourse. I believe that when the Church speaks of male or female, it’s what you had when you were born. That’s it, it’s very clear cut. If you’re male you’re male, if you’re female you’re female, and that’s all there is to it.

If you’re asking why these intrinsic qualities have been split between males and females, you’ll probably have to wait to ask God that one. I can think of sociological reasons but they don’t answer the philosophical question (and we all know that sociology is only a pretend science anyways )

 

[adrift]

No what I am trying to do is understand this with human nature. We, men and women, share one human nature…

How do you define human nature?
One definition I found

human nature 
noun

1. the psychological and social qualities that characterize humankind, especially in contrast with other living things.
2. Sociology . the character of human conduct, generally regarded as produced by living in primary groups.

If gender is intrinsic to human nature then there can not be one. It would necessarily be two human natures if that was the case, the male human nature and the female human nature.

If is a strong word. Your if statement is false therefore your argument is false.

And if that is so then Christ only having the male human nature could not possibly be the savior for women. What is not subsumed can not be saved.

The if is not so.

Your argument seems to create this need of two human natures

As I already have pointed out, your if than statement is based on a false premise.

 

[Balian]

How do we know Christ never called a woman to be a disciple? He called 70 unidentified people to be disciples. Do we know none of them were women? We don’t even know for certain who the 12 are. One Gospel calls them all by name, but then another has one name different, and another only actually names 9, and how do we know the other 3 weren’t women?

As Catholics I don’t believe we are supposed to use Sola Scriptura to buttress arguments for why we think the Church and the Pope are wrong and we are right. I think that is the Protestant view. As Catholics we know, or at least should know, that Scripture is but one of three equal authorities; the other two being sacred Tradition and the episcopacy. So an appeal to Scriptures especially when insinuating that the Scriptures are non-sufficient (not in agreement) doesn’t really cut it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

How do we know Christ never called a woman to be a disciple? He called 70 unidentified people to be disciples. Do we know none of them were women? We don’t even know for certain who the 12 are. One Gospel calls them all by name, but then another has one name different, and another only actually names 9, and how do we know the other 3 weren’t women?

Conversely, how do we know there were women? I think the burden of proof lies on those who want to prove that there were women because as history proves it, we don’t have anyone shown to be a woman out of the disciples.

 

[justme]

If is a strong word. Your if statement is false therefore your argument is false.

That woudl be so if I was making an argument. You have totally missed what I am trying to do.

Thanks for the replies of all those who have tried to address the original questions.

Especially curlycool89 and alfonsus. You have given me somethiings to think about.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Conversely, how do we know there were women? I think the burden of proof lies on those who want to prove that there were women because as history proves it, we don’t have anyone shown to be a woman out of the disciples.

The book of Acts and several of the epistles mention women who were disciples especially of Paul. For example the book of Philippians. There was Aquila and his wife Priscilla. Also the woman Peter raised from the dead Dorcas. These are just a few that come to mind. They were, however not apostles.