Sexual Symbolism and the Male Priesthood

[FuzzyBunny116]

Could anyone explain to me the relationship between sexual symbolism and an all-male priesthood. I understand vaguely that God is the groom, and masculine, and the Church is His bride, and feminine, and that the priest represents God and must be masculine. But why not the other way around? What I mean to say is, what is the sexual symbolism of God and Jesus’ masculinity and of the Church’s femininity, and how does it relate to an all-male priesthood.

 

[Abiien]

Could anyone explain to me the relationship between sexual symbolism and an all-male priesthood. I understand vaguely that God is the groom, and masculine, and the Church is His bride, and feminine, and that the priest represents God and must be masculine. But why not the other way around? What I mean to say is, what is the sexual symbolism of God and Jesus’ masculinity and of the Church’s femininity, and how does it relate to an all-male priesthood.

My Priest explained it to me like this … It took lots of convincing to get his opinion lol.

The Priest is male, number one becasue Jesus was a male as well, and in Persona Christi, how is a female supposed to be in the image of a male, isnt that going against the dignity of the woman? Second of all, the woman bears children, just as the church (Bride) bears children (us). The Male is the creator. Just as God is the creator. Without males a woman could not bear a child. This does not take away the dignity of women or the importance. without women men would be worthless, and vice versa as well. The meaning of an all male priesthood is just as i said first off, i believe, in Persona Christi which is what a priest is called to, that a male should impersonate a male. That is my only (i see it as) valid argument.

I basically repeated what you said… but made my self sound stupid, sorry for that.

Synopsis: It is unnatural for a male to be in the image of a female or a female to act as a male. It is as simple as that. Any further than that, i believe we should ask God. because its his fault he created Jesus a Man… lol and chose all male apostles. And a male to lead the Church. Why didnt he choose a woman? =)

 

[CCCatholic17]

Why didnt he choose a woman?

Maybe he waited 2000 years to choose a woman. All things are possible.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27)
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
The above texts emphasise that both women and men are made in the image of God. One of the main arguments against the ordination of women is that women are not made in the likeness of Christ. Do not women show Christ like characteristics such as love, compassion, personal concern, nurturing, wisdom and sacrifice? What is essential is Christ’s humanity not his maleness.

Blessings,
Heather

 

[Abiien]

Maybe he waited 2000 years to choose a woman. All things are possible.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27)
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
The above texts emphasise that both women and men are made in the image of God. One of the main arguments against the ordination of women is that women are not made in the likeness of Christ. Do not women show Christ like characteristics such as love, compassion, personal concern, nurturing, wisdom and sacrifice? What is essential is Christ’s humanity not his maleness.

Blessings,
Heather

If i didn’t love you more than you know, and if i wasn’t listening to Sufjan Stevens, then I would have to kill you heather… Not really… thats was dumb and irrelevent and you probably think im thinking your stupid which i dont but anyways… to my point.

Theres fine line between spirit and flesh. not erally, but really. The way I see it (im coming up with all of this now) I see what yuo are saying, of course. But what i think is. We do see the Godly characteristics in Christ Jesus. yes. and since we are created in the image and likeness of GOD, then we are capable of those, just as Jesus was. But God was also mad human. 100% Human 100% God. and the human part was made into a Male. God only knows the real reason why. But the way i see it in persona Christi, yes we are all capable. Men and Women, of the GOD part of our Lord Christ Jesus, but we are not all capable of copying the male image that was granted to him.

Your Galatians quote, he was speaking of treating people differently he was directly talking about how he was fed up with people saying the gentiles are dumb or something. This has to do with vocations and Gods calling to a persons abilities. Women are created for one thing, Men for another. I dont see many men wanting to go and act like Mary for the day. There are several exceptions, just as tehre are for female priests (Episcopaleans in california want to leave because of the newly ordained female Priest) Also in Genesis it is said “He Created them MALE and Female” An obvious depiction, but same spiritually, different physically, obviously… dont know where im going with that one. So i will stop. But anyways… God could have made he a she, its possible, who knows. But i believe there is much more background to the reason he chose a male. But alas, most radicals and most disbelievers in an All Male Priesthood do not believe that God does everything for a deep deep reason… this having a deep depp reason i guess…
We are told in 2 corinthians at the beg of chapter six up until verse 10. We are capable of all that Just as Jesus was. But He called Men to take up the cross of Priesthood. (not included in the verses )

Also, i would like to add… Maybe Our God did choose a model for women (Mary), jsut as he chose a model for Men. (Priests)
Mary was a virgin, she was capable of all the good thigns jesus was also (by good things i mean. patience, love compassion, self denial, etc) She was dang awesome. Why worry about what Males are capable of when there is a perfectly fine woman to look up to. whats wrong with it…
besides women who feel being a Priest is their Vocation

(Side note: most of the women ive seen that are Pro-Women Priests are also for allowing…Gay Marriage and usually are kinda manly looking in my opinionlol… Read the end of chapter 1 of Romans Paul goes over it very welll…)

May the GRace of our Lord Jesus be with you

Anyway… Thats what i had to add about that.

.God bless , i still love you lots heather

:-\

-Christopher

 

[havemercy]

If i didn’t love you more than you know, and if i wasn’t listening to Sufjan Stevens, then I would have to kill you heather… Not really… thats was dumb and irrelevent and you probably think im thinking your stupid which i dont but anyways… to my point.

Yay! He’s great. haha

 

[CCCatholic17]

As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:27-28).

As we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another (Romans 12:4-5).

Three issues are affirmed in these passages: 1. the dignity of all members of the Church is equal; and 2. the incorporation into the Church is done by the baptism in the Holy Spirit; 3. each member has different functions.

1. The members of the Church are equal, with different functions. The equality of all the members of the Church is one of the most radical affirmations of the New Testament. This statement was in diametric opposition to Judaism, which established a difference, diametric too, between Jews and non Jews, between Jews and Gentiles.

Against this position, Paul comes affirming: There is neither Jew nor Greek (or Gentile), there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). Any kind of discrimination is abolished in the Church, whether it be race, or gender or any other. Nevertheless, how difficult it has been —and is today— to eradicate discrimination from the Church. Women for instance have been —and are— discriminated for centuries!

But the teaching of the New Testament is clear: all the members of the Church enjoy the same dignity; there are no classes in the Church; there are no members superior to another; any distinction of dignity in the Church is against the teaching of the New Testament and does not have biblical foundation.

The emphasis used by Peter is notorious when he talks about the equality of all the members of the Church. At the first Council, in Jerusalem, talking about the Gentiles recently converted to the gospel, he said: Made no distinction between us and them (Acts 15:9). He couldn’t say it more emphatically and clear: we all are equal!

All the letters of the Apostles and the practice of the New Testament confirms the same truth. There is not the smallest vestige in the New Testament, the writing of Peter included, that would have suggested that he, or any of the Apostles, would have a dignity or distinction above the rest of the Church. That would have been an aberration.

1. Baptism incorporates into the Church. Paul says to Corinthians: By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body… and have all been made to drink into one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). And writing to Galatians, he says: As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Galatians 3:27). Every Christian becomes member of the body of Christ, the Church, through faith of baptism. Faith in the gospel incorporates the believer into the body of Christ. Faith of baptism makes the believer a member of His body.

The members of the Church are equal, with different functions. The equality of all the members of the Church is one of the most radical affirmations of the New Testament. This statement was in diametric opposition to Judaism, which established a difference, diametric too, between Jews and non Jews, between Jews and Gentiles.

Against this position, Paul comes affirming: There is neither Jew nor Greek (or Gentile), there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). Any kind of discrimination is abolished in the Church, whether it be race, or gender or any other. Nevertheless, how difficult it has been —and is today— to eradicate discrimination from the Church. Women for instance have been —and are— discriminated for centuries!

But the teaching of the New Testament is clear: all the members of the Church enjoy the same dignity; there are no classes in the Church; there are no members superior to another; any distinction of dignity in the Church is against the teaching of the New Testament and does not have biblical foundation.

The emphasis used by Peter is notorious when he talks about the equality of all the members of the Church. At the first Council, in Jerusalem, talking about the Gentiles recently converted to the gospel, he said: Made no distinction between us and them (Acts 15:9). He couldn’t say it more emphatically and clear: we all are equal!

All the letters of the Apostles and the practice of the New Testament confirms the same truth. There is not the smallest vestige in the New Testament, the writing of Peter included, that would have suggested that he, or any of the Apostles, would have a dignity or distinction above the rest of the Church. That would have been an aberration.

 

[CCCatholic17]

( continued)

1. Different functions. It is a completely different thing to talk about functions, gifts or ministries in the Church; in these, there are differences, as there are in everybody. Paul says that, in the quotation of Romans for this. As we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we in Christ (Romans 12:4-5). As it happens in the body, where the eye has its own function, and the hands its own, and the foot, but all together give harmony to the body, thus also in the Church, the body of Christ.

But the diversity of functions or ministries does not make one superior to the other. Paul talks about this in 1 Corinthians 12, where he says that no member can tell the other member: I have no need of you… much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary (15-21,22).

Neither do the gifts of the Spirit make those who receive them superior, because the gifts are for the service of all: The manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for profit of all (1 Corinthians 12:7).

P.S Gay marriage is immoral.

 

[Valke2]

Maybe he waited 2000 years to choose a woman. All things are possible.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27)
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
The above texts emphasise that both women and men are made in the image of God. One of the main arguments against the ordination of women is that women are not made in the likeness of Christ. Do not women show Christ like characteristics such as love, compassion, personal concern, nurturing, wisdom and sacrifice? What is essential is Christ’s humanity not his maleness.

Blessings,
Heather

I’m convinced.

 

[FCEGM]

Could anyone explain to me the relationship between sexual symbolism and an all-male priesthood. I understand vaguely that God is the groom, and masculine, and the Church is His bride, and feminine, and that the priest represents God and must be masculine. But why not the other way around? What I mean to say is, what is the sexual symbolism of God and Jesus’ masculinity and of the Church’s femininity, and how does it relate to an all-male priesthood.

These two articles might be of help:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a49.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/a51.htm

An excerpt from the latter:

The Male Priesthood As I understand the line of thinking from many proponents of the ordination of women to the priesthood, it first assumes a functional understanding of the priesthood, i.e., a role someone does, and then a political understanding of why it is restricted to men, i.e., a power interest. From these assumptions they do not see how a woman can not do what a man does should she have the talents, training and motivation for the vocation, nor why she would be excluded in principle except by unjust discrimination by power-invested hierarchs (or perhaps, for some, from a motive of mindless tradition).

But this thinking is about as far removed from the understanding of the Church as one can get. Why? Because the Church understands the Sacraments to operate by reason of their symbolism. And what they “operate” is a supernatural reality beyond the entire natural order. . . .

. . .Just as it is not by the natural properties of water or the human symbolism of Baptism (the Jews had a baptism of repentance) that the supernatural effects of Sacramental Baptism occur, neither is it by the natural qualifications of any human being, male or female, as such that any supernatural effects of Priesthood take place. That is why it is not by the natural qualifications of a woman functioning in the role of a priest (preaching, ministering, etc.) that there would by any supernatural effects. Only the men the Church accepts as living symbols of the God-Man Jesus Christ as Head to the Body of the Church, and Groom to the Church as His Bride through sacramental Ordination by Apostolic Succession have the supernatural causality.It is obvious that a woman can not symbolize being Christ the Groom (inescapably male); neither also the supernatural Headship (i.e., as reference point and absolute origin – rather than superiority - like the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit in the Trinity). So it is not a put-down of the natural or attained abilities of a woman who could function in the activities of the office as well - or in some cases (preaching) better – than a man or particular men from a social point of view. It is the lack of symbolism in being a woman of the specific Man Jesus Christ Who as a man is Priest, Head to the Body, Groom to the Bride, Son to the Father, Father of the World to Come. The woman can of course symbolize the Body and the Bride of Christ and she does, and Mary is the Woman and the symbol of the Church in its highest. . .

 

[FCEGM]

. . .Against this position, Paul comes affirming: There is neither Jew nor Greek (or Gentile), there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). Any kind of discrimination is abolished in the Church, whether it be race, or gender or any other. Nevertheless, how difficult it has been —and is today— to eradicate discrimination from the Church. Women for instance have been —and are— discriminated for centuries!
QUOTE]

Do you see the male-only priesthood as an unscriptural discrimination against women?

 

[FCEGM]

( continued)

1. Different functions. It is a completely different thing to talk about functions, gifts or ministries in the Church; in these, there are differences, as there are in everybody. Paul says that, in the quotation of Romans for this. As we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we in Christ (Romans 12:4-5). As it happens in the body, where the eye has its own function, and the hands its own, and the foot, but all together give harmony to the body, thus also in the Church, the body of Christ.

But the diversity of functions or ministries does not make one superior to the other. Paul talks about this in 1 Corinthians 12, where he says that no member can tell the other member: I have no need of you… much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary (15-21,22).

Neither do the gifts of the Spirit make those who receive them superior, because the gifts are for the service of all: The manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for profit of all (1 Corinthians 12:7).

P.S Gay marriage is immoral.

Heather, I think you should have mentioned that what you have posted comes verbatim from the following site of someone who if Catholic is veering away from orthodox Christianity of any sort:

mbay.net/~jmejia/chapt15.htm

 

[FCEGM]

Maybe he waited 2000 years to choose a woman. All things are possible.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27)
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
The above texts emphasise that both women and men are made in the image of God. One of the main arguments against the ordination of women is that women are not made in the likeness of Christ. Do not women show Christ like characteristics such as love, compassion, personal concern, nurturing, wisdom and sacrifice? What is essential is Christ’s humanity not his maleness.

Blessings,
Heather

And this comes verbatim from the “Catholic Women’s Ordination” site:

catholic-womens-ordination.org.uk/for.htm

 

[davidmammola]

As Catholics, we believe in an incarnational and sacramental view of the world. This means matter is not incidental. God created it good for a reason and redeemed it by assuming to Himself a physical human nature. Our bodies and our genders are not incidental. They are essential components of who we are (components is the wrong word: we are body soul composites). God works through matter. When God became a man it was not by accident, but by choice. Christ’s maleness was meant to reveal something to us about the relationship between God and His Church. There is also a good reason why God designed the Church to be female, and why He designed human beings to have gender in the first place. He designed us to be made for each other. He made us to be physically and emotionally complementary (this is one reason why the Church rejects homosexual acts).

The male represents transcendence (going beyond oneself); the female represents immanence (receiving and conceiving within oneself). The male gives; the female receives. The male should give everything that he is to his beloved. The female beloved should receive everything that her lover is. This is clearly modeled in the marital act, a sacramental action that makes present that fecundity, love, and union of which it is a sign.

Christ gives us everything He is in the Eucharist. We the Church (female) receive all that He is. The priest gives us the Eucharist. We receive the Eucharist. This shows the necessity of the priest being male if we are to have an adequate sign of the reality taking place. Remember, we are incarnational and sacramental, so the SIGN IS IMPORTANT!

This does not mean women are of less value or dignity than men. It only means that men and women (who are both made in the image and likeness of God) have different roles in the Body of Christ. The eye should not say to the hand, “I do not need you, or I wish I was like you.” Each person should fulfill his or her calling in life according to his or her God-given nature. Each person should strive to play the role God has given them to play in the building up of the Body of Christ.

Jesus loved His mother more than anyone; if priesthood was based on holiness, Mary would have been the first priest. Jesus went against cultural norms in many ways (calling Himself “I AM”). If women were to be priests, He would have made it so by naming a woman to be one of the twelve. There were already many priestesses in the ancient world. It would have been shocking within Judaism, but then again, so would the Incarnation and Trinity.

Hope this helps.

 

[FCEGM]

As Catholics, we believe in an incarnational and sacramental view of the world. This means matter is not incidental. God created it good for a reason and redeemed it by assuming to Himself a physical human nature. Our bodies and our genders are not incidental. They are essential components of who we are (components is the wrong word: we are body soul composites). God works through matter. When God became a man it was not by accident, but by choice. Christ’s maleness was meant to reveal something to us about the relationship between God and His Church. There is also a good reason why God designed the Church to be female, and why He designed human beings to have gender in the first place. He designed us to be made for each other. He made us to be physically and emotionally complementary (this is one reason why the Church rejects homosexual acts).

The male represents transcendence (going beyond oneself); the female represents immanence (receiving and conceiving within oneself). The male gives; the female receives. The male should give everything that he is to his beloved. The female beloved should receive everything that her lover is. This is clearly modeled in the marital act, a sacramental action that makes present that fecundity, love, and union of which it is a sign.

Christ gives us everything He is in the Eucharist. We the Church (female) receive all that He is. The priest gives us the Eucharist. We receive the Eucharist. This shows the necessity of the priest being male if we are to have an adequate sign of the reality taking place. Remember, we are incarnational and sacramental, so the SIGN IS IMPORTANT!

This does not mean women are of less value or dignity than men. It only means that men and women (who are both made in the image and likeness of God) have different roles in the Body of Christ. The eye should not say to the hand, “I do not need you, or I wish I was like you.” Each person should fulfill his or her calling in life according to his or her God-given nature. Each person should strive to play the role God has given them to play in the building up of the Body of Christ.

Jesus loved His mother more than anyone; if priesthood was based on holiness, Mary would have been the first priest. Jesus went against cultural norms in many ways (calling Himself “I AM”). If women were to be priests, He would have made it so by naming a woman to be one of the twelve. There were already many priestesses in the ancient world. It would have been shocking within Judaism, but then again, so would the Incarnation and Trinity.

Hope this helps.

I’m sure it will, David, and it bore repeating. :clapping:

 

[Abiien]

Thank you all for inspiring my want to learn, i suppose.
This discussion has no only broadened my view of thigns in this topic i guess…

Thanks David, and thanks everyone. I consider this topic closed on my part because I do not know enough to debate. I only know enough to have a belief.

-Chris

 

[tdandh26]

No person has a right to the priesthood, noone. It is God who established this, even from the time of Moses God ordained that men should be priests. And, dont tell me that society then was male dominated because other cultures had priestesses and you can find that in many passages in the bible where the Jews adopted pagan religions in opposition to God. I seriously doubt that any of the Jews would have rebelled had God said that a woman could be a priest, but as it is HE did not.
It was through disobedience and a selfish desire that Eve took the apple, seems like much hasn’t changed since then as we have women demanding that the Church,which God established and guarenteed would have the Holy Spirit to guide it, change its unchangable teachings because they know better than God.

I just wonder how will people who do these things answer Christ when they stand in Judgement before Him? Will he say what proof did you need you had the fathers and the Church you should have listened to them. Kinda like He said in the parable of the rich man and lazarus.

 

[Nita]

This jealousy of the appointed priesthood is not something new. And those who rebel against it would be wise to read Chapter 16 in the Old Testament book of Numbers:

A sampling:
*16:8 And Moses said to Korah, “Hear now, you sons of Levi: 16:9 is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself, to do service in the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation to minister to them; 16:10 and that he has brought you near him, and all your brethren the sons of Levi with you? And would you seek the priesthood also? 16:11 Therefore it is against the LORD that you and all your company have gathered together; what is Aaron that you murmur against him?” *
To find out the ending, get out your Bible!! It isn’t pretty.

It appears this same jealousy crept up very early in the Church, as St. Jude refers to it (“Korah’s rebellion”) in his epistle.

And then there is also the jealousy (on the part of Miriam and Aaron) of the authority God gave to Moses. God did not look very kindly on that either. (Numbers, Chapter 12)

Nita

 

[CCCatholic17]

Heather, I think you should have mentioned that what you have posted comes verbatim from the following site of someone who if Catholic is veering away from orthodox Christianity of any sort:

mbay.net/~jmejia/chapt15.htm

You are totally right, I put it in a PM and must have overlooked it when I posted.

My prayers go out to all of you, regardless of what your opinions may be.

 

[FCEGM]

You are totally right, I put it in a PM and must have overlooked it when I posted.

My prayers go out to all of you, regardless of what your opinions may be.

Heather, there are opinions on this matter and then there is the teaching of Christ through His Church - His “opinion” is what matters.

 

[martig]

I tried to post this question as a new thread but it got lost in the ethernet…then I found this post (where it naturally belongs).

My wife is in a non-denominational Christian women’s book club (hosted by an Episcopal church) and the question of whether it is proper to call God our “Mother” came up. Some argued that, since God is neither male nor female the only reason he is referred to as “Father” is because of the lowly position of women in Old Testament times.

Other than pointing out Jesus’ own reference to “Our Father” when telling us how to pray or even God described as “Father Almighty” in the Creed, is there any other theological argument for why it is inappropriate to refer to God as feminine?

Thanks,
Mike