Reason for all male priesthood

[HabemusFrancis]

For the longest time I wasn’t sure what to make of the Church’s inability to ordain women. Lately though I have been doing some reading both of the Bible and other Catholic theology.

It is because Jesus only chose men to be his apostles ( disciples were and can be of either gender.) And Mary Magdalene, Phoebe, and the women that helped Paul with his ministry were not apostles since they were not given the uhmm “powers” I guess that Jesus gave the original 12 ( exorcism, forgiving sins etc.) More importantly, isn’t the last supper sort of confirmation of Jesus wanting an all male priesthood? Making the Eucharist seems one of the most important things a priest can do (besides baptism). And Jesus could have had his Mother or Mary Magdalene there, but chose not to.

This is kind of an interesting site, one that wishes to allow women to be ordained :romancatholicwomenpriests.org.

They seem sincere, if pretty misguided. They sort of bend history too saying that there used to be female priests before Constantine took over the Catholic Church ( I think there never really were) and implies that ancient images of women on its website were female priests from long ago. Im pretty sure there just mosaics of the Virgin Mary and Byzantine noblewomen:shrug:.

So do I have the reasoning for the all male preisthood correct?

 

[jmcrae]

For the longest time I wasn’t sure what to make of the Church’s inability to ordain women. Lately though I have been doing some reading both of the Bible and other Catholic theology.

It is because Jesus only chose men to be his apostles ( disciples were and can be of either gender.) And Mary Magdalene, Phoebe, and the women that helped Paul with his ministry were not apostles since they were not given the uhmm “powers” I guess that Jesus gave the original 12 ( exorcism, forgiving sins etc.) More importantly, isn’t the last supper sort of confirmation of Jesus wanting an all male priesthood? Making the Eucharist seems one of the most important things a priest can do (besides baptism). And Jesus could have had his Mother or Mary Magdalene there, but chose not to.

This is kind of an interesting site, one that wishes to allow women to be ordained :romancatholicwomenpriests.org.

They seem sincere, if pretty misguided. They sort of bend history too saying that there used to be female priests before Constantine took over the Catholic Church ( I think there never really were) and implies that ancient images of women on its website were female priests from long ago. Im pretty sure there just mosaics of the Virgin Mary and Byzantine noblewomen:shrug:.

So do I have the reasoning for the all male preisthood correct?

Priests are male because Adam was male.

Christian priests are male because Jesus (the second Adam) was male.

 

[TheSurvivor]

The most important Sacrament a priest can celebrate is the Blessed Sacrament, as all the other Sacraments are ordered towards Christ. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our Catholic Faith which He founded.

 

[Skeptic92]

For the longest time I wasn’t sure what to make of the Church’s inability to ordain women. Lately though I have been doing some reading both of the Bible and other Catholic theology.

It is because Jesus only chose men to be his apostles ( disciples were and can be of either gender.) And Mary Magdalene, Phoebe, and the women that helped Paul with his ministry were not apostles since they were not given the uhmm “powers” I guess that Jesus gave the original 12 ( exorcism, forgiving sins etc.) More importantly, isn’t the last supper sort of confirmation of Jesus wanting an all male priesthood? Making the Eucharist seems one of the most important things a priest can do (besides baptism). And Jesus could have had his Mother or Mary Magdalene there, but chose not to.

This is kind of an interesting site, one that wishes to allow women to be ordained :romancatholicwomenpriests.org.

They seem sincere, if pretty misguided. They sort of bend history too saying that there used to be female priests before Constantine took over the Catholic Church ( I think there never really were) and implies that ancient images of women on its website were female priests from long ago. Im pretty sure there just mosaics of the Virgin Mary and Byzantine noblewomen:shrug:.

So do I have the reasoning for the all male preisthood correct?

This is actually quite a complicated question, I can recommend some books to you in about 24 hours when I return home. Whilst people may give a short answer that may answer at least some of your concerns; a short answer will gloss over the rich Theological reasoning behind the Sacrament.

Also; this is also more Dogmatic Theology than Philosophy

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Priests are male because Adam was male.

Christian priests are male because Jesus (the second Adam) was male.

_____ are female because Eve was female?

 

[dmar198]

_____ are female because Eve was female?

Birth givers?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Birth givers?

But priests are called to celibacy.

 

[stewstew03]

_____ are female because Eve was female?

[Not applicable]

 

[stewstew03]

I don’t think your reasoning is correct.

First, Jesus may have had several different reasons why he chose only male apostles. Perhaps it was because he knew men would not listen to women preach in that era. Perhaps he thought it would be too dangerous for the women.
…

Your contention seems to be that Jesus – who claimed to be the Son of God, and who told his followers to “eat his flesh and drink his blood” – did not want to violate cultural norms, or have anyone risk their lives for The Faith. Therefore, he went with the safe choice – 12 men.

 

[ericc]

I don’t think your reasoning is correct.

First, Jesus may have had several different reasons why he chose only male apostles. Perhaps it was because he knew men would not listen to women preach in that era. Perhaps he thought it would be too dangerous for the women. Perhaps they couldn’t move around the rough terrain as easily as the men because they were pregnant or having their periods. .

In ancient times, it is quite normal to have priestesses in pagan religions. So woman priests are not an uncommon thing in those era. However, in Judaism priests were male. Jesus had many women followers. His mum and Mary Magdalene would be qualified but he did not appoint them. After Jesus ascension, the Holy Spirit did not appoint any women to be priests. There were deaconess, prophetess such as the 4 daughters of evangelist Philip , but no female were appointed priests. Paul mentioned a number of highly regard woman Christians, but none was appointed. The women understood that being female, they could never sacramentally be in persona Christi as he says “This is my Body”.

But he may have not meant for this all-male priesthood to continue forever.

And your evidence to support this statement?

Besides, Mary Magdalene did go and preach all over Rome, I think, after Jesus died.

And yet not a single woman appointed priest. And we didn’t have any records of them demanding to be priest either.

Second, we don’t know for sure if there were no women present at the passover meal before Jesus was arrested.The women most likely cooked the meal and then served it…can you imagine Jesus then sending the Jewish women out and away into the night, on Passover??!
And in the gospels, he gives bread and wine to his “disciples” not only to his “apostles”. Both words are used. The gospel writers may have just not specified both genders, thinking “disciples” was enough description since everyone already know there were female disciples, too.

Women would be around the passover meals and sitting at other tables with other followers. But who will be sitting at the main table with Jesus?
Luke 22:14. it says "And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him.
In Mark 14:17-20, the conversation there clearly indicated the 12 Apostles only.
Same in Matthew 26:20.

No evidence that other than the 12 apostles did Jesus address the whole traveling group and support staff. The key is who is Jesus speaking to and addressing? Who did he intended the message when he said “Do this in memory of me” The cook, the kitchen hand and the table servers?

To extrapolate to women disciples not at the main table require a supreme effort and charitable mind to imagine Jesus shouting across the table to address the whole traveling group.

Third, I don’t think that site is bending history.
You can see paintings of women on the catacomb walls wearing priests’ vestments.

She could be a deaconess? Or some high society figure? How do you know that those are priestly vestments?

And women used to give the bread and wine when “mass” was held at home in the first few centuries.

How do you know that? Did she say “This is my body”? No women has ever been given such authority. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, you are just throwing wild guesses.

Once the service was taken outside the home a few centuries later, after generations and generations, and made into a hierarchal structure…welll…you can guess what happened next…

Anyone can guess and imagine things but that is not helpful. Since you seem to have some familiarity with the subject, why don’t you share your documentary evidence with us and we will attempt to guess what happened.

 

[edwest2]

Pope John Paul II wrote quite clearly about this.

"2. The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church “does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”(3) To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: “The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church’s Tradition- Christ established things in this way.”(4)

“In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”(5)”

Jesus Christ, as God, was not constrained by any “sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time.”

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/jo…otalis_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Aloysium]

Personally, a very long time ago I considered becoming a priest.
It has many attractions, but I was called to do something else.
It would be good to hear from women who believe they have been called to the priesthood.

 

[jmcrae]

_____ are female because Eve was female?

Mothers. Nuns. Wives.

 

[adrift]

Besides, Mary Magdalene did go and preach all over Rome, I think, after Jesus died.

.

The last mention of Mary Magdalene Is in the gospels when she is the first to realize that Jesus has resurrected hence she is referred to at the Apostle to the Apostles. That she was obviously very important makes her disappearance from records unexplainable to me. There is no record of her preaching anywhere. There are legends that occur in the 1500’s but there is no documented record of what happened to her. The last record of her by name is at the resurrection.

 

[Oreoracle]

I have to say, from the outside looking in, some of the arguments used in this thread are bewildering. Suppose Jesus only had male disciples. So? Contrary to popular depictions of Jesus, he and his disciples were definitely not white either. Therefore, Jesus must have been asking for an non-white priesthood. See how silly that sounds?

And some of the arguments are just blatantly circular. Yes, there haven’t been any female Catholic priests in millennia. So? You can’t use that as an argument in favor of keeping the priesthood entirely male. That would be a circular argument. “The priesthood should stay all-male because previous generations thought the priesthood should stay all-male.”

It’s pretty obvious what the real answer is. Imagine that another faith, say a non-Abrahamic one, had similar all-male requirements of their officials. What would you presume the reason for that would be?

 

[edwest2]

Mary Magdalene. Brave and strong. Helps fund Jesus’ travels. Stays with him during the crucifixion. She’s the first one to see a vision of him after death, the first one to proclaim it. And then…she disappears.
The gospels were written 40-80-ish years after Jesus died.
Why didn’t anyone add/include what happened to this important woman?

My theory is that…because she was a woman, the others did not care to include her–either the other male disciples during their travels, or the male writers of the gospels, who were shaping early Christianity.
The bits of gospels we have that were not included in the canon show the other apostles frustrated at Jesus’ insisting at having Mary M included so much.

Is there documented record on what happened to Mary, Jesus’ mother?
Not legend, but documented record? (not sure how to define “documented record”)

Much of what people talk about re the Apostles is “legend” too, right?
From all the Early Christianity experts and professors I’ve spoken to, all their deaths (except one that is mentioned in the bible i think?) are “legend”…how and where all they died and all those details are not in any documented record, no reliable source.

.

With all due respect, while the Gospels were written by men, they were written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That same Spirit guided which books would go into the Bible. The fact that this or that person is not mentioned is not the doing of men.

There are books about the Saints, including Mary Magdalene, and a google search makes it easy to find information about a particular saint.

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=83

A great deal has been written about Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Church teaches her Assumption. That she was assumed into heaven. Again, a google search for a Catholic web site about Mary will tell you what happened.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Skeptic92]

I have to say, from the outside looking in, some of the arguments used in this thread are bewildering. Suppose Jesus only had male disciples. So? Contrary to popular depictions of Jesus, he and his disciples were definitely not white either. Therefore, Jesus must have been asking for an non-white priesthood. See how silly that sounds?

And some of the arguments are just blatantly circular. Yes, there haven’t been any female Catholic priests in millennia. So? You can’t use that as an argument in favor of keeping the priesthood entirely male. That would be a circular argument. “The priesthood should stay all-male because previous generations thought the priesthood should stay all-male.”

It’s pretty obvious what the real answer is. Imagine that another faith, say a non-Abrahamic one, had similar all-male requirements of their officials. What would you presume the reason for that would be?

To the first point; in regards to a “non-white Priesthood”, this would be a classic case of mistaking the accidental with the essential. Which is an ontological/metaphysical fallacy, whereas the first example would not commit this fallacy. As the male and female have intrinsically different causal powers (or at least modes of these powers), therefore there is an ontological distinction between the sexes.

To the second; you are blurring the distinction between what authority the Church has to celebrate the Sacrament, and what the authority of the Church has to change the Sacrament. Your fallacy is that of a strawman.

To the Third; this argument is irrelevant; and an appeal to emotions. Rather than systematic argument. The reasons for an all-male Priesthood have been demonstrated numerous times over the past 2 millenniums. The argument for women ordination has far more to do with Feminist Theology, which is little more than sociology in religious language, rather than Sacred Theology proper. This is problematic, as logically this means the argument is begging the question and not offering any coherent rational argument.

 

[Oreoracle]

As the male and female have intrinsically different causal powers (or at least modes of these powers), therefore there is an ontological distinction between the sexes.

Oh boy, ontology. I’m sorry if I seem exasperated, but I’ve discussed ontology with people before. Here’s how the discussions always go:

Ontology buff: “In this set of objects there are two types, A and B. Objects of types A and B have their own respective essences because they are obviously different. Thus, we must treat them differently.”

Me: “You haven’t actually proven that these objects differ in any way beyond the differences you use to distinguish them in the first place. So by evoking essences you’re just adding an extra level of complexity to otherwise simple reasoning. For example, I could partition this set differently into types C and D, note that they are obviously different, and assert there must be essences involved there as well.”

Ontology buff: “But the characteristics you noted don’t arise from essences.”

Me: “How do you know? I did exactly the same thing you did: I pointed out differences among members of the set, and arbitrarily claimed they must arise from some spooky ‘essences’.”

Ontology buff: “Umm…you have to read such-and-such authors before you are allowed to disagree with me.”

But if you insist on having the argument, I’ll play along. I claim that there is an ontological distinction between the races, just as you’ve done for the sexes. Your turn.

To the second; you are blurring the distinction between what authority the Church has to celebrate the Sacrament, and what the authority of the Church has to change the Sacrament. Your fallacy is that of a strawman.

The debate rather seems to be over whether there is something to change at all. To my knowledge, Jesus never explicitly stated there ought to be an all-male priesthood, which is why the issue is so contentious. Catholics appear to be inferring it through different sets of questionable premises.

To the Third; this argument is irrelevant; and an appeal to emotions.

Actually, it does the opposite by removing your bias. If it doesn’t make sense for other religions to do it, why does your religion get a pass?

 

[jmcrae]

The debate rather seems to be over whether there is something to change at all. To my knowledge, Jesus never explicitly stated there ought to be an all-male priesthood, which is why the issue is so contentious. Catholics appear to be inferring it through different sets of questionable premises.

The Apostles describe Jesus as “second Adam” (prototypical Man) rather than as “second Abraham” (prototypical Semite) or “second Moses” (prototypical Jew) - therefore, we know that it is His maleness that is his essential characteristic, rather than His race or religion.

Why Adam? It is Adam who brought death into the world through human sin.

You can protest that it was Eve who sinned first - but her sin was not mortal. She was under duress. The Devil tricked her.

Adam sinned freely and of his own accord - he was not pressured; nor did he argue in any way against the idea, as Eve did (though she failed to convince the Devil with her argument, thus teaching us never to argue with the Devil).

When Adam sinned, death entered the world. When Jesus died for sins on the Cross, He undid the knot that had been tied by Adam - death’s sting was taken away, and eternal life became possible again.

When the Christian priest re-presents this Sacrifice at Mass, he does so “in persona Christi” - in the person of Christ - not so much in His divinity, but rather in His humanity, as the second Adam - the man.

That’s why Christian priests are male.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, it does the opposite by removing your bias. If it doesn’t make sense for other religions to do it, why does your religion get a pass?

Are there female Buddhas, or female Dalai Lamas?