Something that confuddles me about the nature of the priesthood

[AJV]

Don’t jump on me- I don’t support women ‘priests’. But I would like to know counter arguments from these points (and not, ‘the Church says so’ which is hardly convincing to people who don’t believe in the wisdom of the Church or who feel that it should live out what they (often genuinely) feel is the Gospel)

1) As regards the argument: The priest acts in persona Christi and so has to conform to Christ in his maleness.

-Why does the priest only have to conform to Christ in his maleness?
-Since male and female have been made one in Christ then a female should be able to represent Him.
-If God dwells within us from the moment of our Baptism, we are already “imaging” Christ.

Any answers, anyone?

 

[Jasny]

AJV:

Don’t jump on me- I don’t support women ‘priests’. But I would like to know counter arguments from these points (and not, ‘the Church says so’ which is hardly convincing to people who don’t believe in the wisdom of the Church or who feel that it should live out what they (often genuinely) feel is the Gospel)

1) As regards the argument: The priest acts in persona Christi and so has to conform to Christ in his maleness.

-Why does the priest only have to conform to Christ in his maleness?
-Since male and female have been made one in Christ then a female should be able to represent Him.
-If God dwells within us from the moment of our Baptism, we are already “imaging” Christ.

Any answers, anyone?

The problem isn’t an answer but acceptence. There has been many good reasons given already, but they may not satisfy. A no-women-priesthood is just part of the Faith. If someone isn’t satisfied with what has already been said then they aren’t interested in the Catholic Church.

Jesus never explained why we have to use bread and wine at mass there was no explaination. Why not water and meat? No one can answer that. Only God ultimately can say why women can’t be priests. Women have to make peace with it. Or don’t be a Catholic. It is part of faith and trust in God.

 

[Aureole]

AJV:

Don’t jump on me- I don’t support women ‘priests’. But I would like to know counter arguments from these points (and not, ‘the Church says so’ which is hardly convincing to people who don’t believe in the wisdom of the Church or who feel that it should live out what they (often genuinely) feel is the Gospel)

1) As regards the argument: The priest acts in persona Christi and so has to conform to Christ in his maleness.

-Why does the priest only have to conform to Christ in his maleness?
-Since male and female have been made one in Christ then a female should be able to represent Him.
-If God dwells within us from the moment of our Baptism, we are already “imaging” Christ.

Any answers, anyone?

Now someone correct me if I’m wrong, and I apologize in advance for not having the direct passages at the moment, but I’m fairly sure the Catechism describes certain requirements for the sacraments to be valid, one of which is outward signs or symbols; the Eucharist is not really the Eucharist unless the priest uses bread and wine. The host would not become the body of Christ unless it was bread, same with the wine. The same principle applies to all the sacraments; Baptism and water, Confirmation and the oil, Holy Orders and a man.

I’ll look up the relevant passages later, right now I ought to get to class.

 

[Brendan]

Aureole:

the Eucharist is not really the Eucharist unless the priest uses bread and wine. The host would not become the body of Christ unless it was bread, same with the wine. The same principle applies to all the sacraments; Baptism and water, Confirmation and the oil, Holy Orders and a man.

I’ll look up the relevant passages later, right now I ought to get to class.

You pretty much nailed it. I would challenge anyone who supports women’s ordination to document when, in the past, the Church has declared itself to have the necessary authority to change the matter of a Sacrament

 

[JimG]

-Why does the priest only have to conform to Christ in his maleness?

The “problem,” if there is one, lies with the Incarnation itself. A priest as priest acts in the person of Christ in allowing Christ to use him to extend the sacrifice of calvary throughout time and space. Christ became incarnate as a man, and then offered himself in sacrifice. He instituted the Eucharist to enable that sacrifice to be made present throughout history. It is the specificity of the sacrifice that requires the specificity of gender. Had Christ become incarnate as a woman, men could not become priests.

True, we are all called to image Christ spiritually, but we are not all called to image him as priest.

 

[the-3rd-parent]

The issue mainly is that we live in a culture that seeks to destroy the distinctions of men and women and to deny that they have uniquely diffferent roles.

As a woman, I may be one in Christ, and I may be an image of God. But I would say it is incorrect to call me an image of Jesus Christ suitable to stand behind the altar and offer of the sacrifice.

People like to write off this distinction as mere prejudice, but its basis is Traditional and Scriptural.

I wouldn’t say this is something unanswerable, but something of which the answer will not satisfy secular individuals since they reject the tenents it is based upon.

A woman to enter the priesthood would have to reject such tenents in order to consider the priesthood, and in that state even if she were a man that is a horrible plank in the eye that would not put her in a state suitable for helping others remove the specs from their eyes.

 

[Brendan]

AJV:

-Why does the priest only have to conform to Christ in his maleness?

The priest images Christ in all things.a female priest would, by defintion, be lacking in one aspect

-Since male and female have been made one in Christ then a female should be able to represent Him.
-If God dwells within us from the moment of our Baptism, we are already “imaging” Christ.

Any answers, anyone?

Yes, all Baptized person image Christ as the Common priesthood (the priest, prophet and king we are annointed to at Baptism)

. But the Common Priesthood is NOT the Ministerial Priesthood. Vatican II said that they differ not only to degree but in character and essence as well (Lumen Gentium). If they didn’t any Baptized person could confect the Eucharist or Absolve Sin, and we know that is not the case.

So no, without the character of Sacerdotal Orders, a person cannot Image Christ in the way necessary for the Sacrifice of the Mass.

And, as mentioned above, the Church does not have the Authority to change the matter of any Sacrament. Any change would, by defintion, be doubtful.

 

[palmas85]

One of the things about the male/female argument on the priesthood that always amazes me is that there seems to be a blanket idea that all males can become priests. Not so. I often felt, and I’m sure that at certain times in our lives most men have felt that they wanted to be Priests. Felt, feeling, desire, wants… Could I have ever been one, not in a million years, but I still felt that I wanted it. I just didn’t have the calling.

Some women apparently want to be Priests, want, feeling, desire. Is the fact you want something, in this case the Priesthood, the same as having a calling for it? I somehow doubt that. I also doubt that many if any women have that calling. I make that statement for a very simple reason.

I don’t think that God would grant the calling to people that he knew were not going to be ordained. That does not make a lot of sense to me, and one lessson that I’ve learned in life is that while we don’t always understand why God does the things he does, they do make sense.

As for women who want to be Priests, hey, I feel for you, I do, but I can’t be one either. So I say, serve the Church in the ways that you can, pray, and if the day comes that God decides to permit female Priests go for it.

 

[Aureole]

While I was searching for the relevant Catechism passages I stumbled upon an article I thought I would share that should help to explain a few things about the doctrine of an all male clergy. I’ll continue to search for the specific passages though.

 

[Liberalsaved]

AJV:

Don’t jump on me- I don’t support women ‘priests’. But I would like to know counter arguments from these points (and not, ‘the Church says so’ which is hardly convincing to people who don’t believe in the wisdom of the Church or who feel that it should live out what they (often genuinely) feel is the Gospel)

1) As regards the argument: The priest acts in persona Christi and so has to conform to Christ in his maleness.

-Why does the priest only have to conform to Christ in his maleness?
-Since male and female have been made one in Christ then a female should be able to represent Him.
-If God dwells within us from the moment of our Baptism, we are already “imaging” Christ.

Any answers, anyone?

It’s a confusing question, and given the murkiness of history it’s hard to obtain any definitive answers. But you are correct that “because it is” is not a satisfactory answer.

 

[lag]

If Jesus had wanted women to be priests He would have invited them to the last supper. Women aren’t priests because they aren’t qualified or not worthy of the calling. It’s a costitutive element of the Sacrament of Holy Orders–any pope, council or bishop can’t change it. The church can’t change what constitutes valid matter for any of the seven sacraments. Sacred tradition, nearly 2000 years old, has never had an instance of women priests. Jesus didn’t ordain any women or call any of them to be apostles–thus even excluding his mother. The male priest represents the male Christ (groom of the church). Women don’t fit into that typology.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

It’s a confusing question, and given the murkiness of history it’s hard to obtain any definitive answers. But you are correct that “because it is” is not a satisfactory answer.

Well, what more do you want, and what is this “murkiness” of history? Do we need to reopen the Canon of Scripture because of the Gnostic “gospels”? Unless you want to consult revisionist historians, I think history is pretty clear-there was never a woman priest (at least not in orthodox Christianity).

However, history isn’t infallible, thus we look to the Church. The Church has declared that women cannot be priests, most recently when Pope John Paul II stated that the Church doesn’t even have the authority to make women priests IF it even wanted to-how much clearer can it be?

Like basically all issues of theology and religion, it comes back to authority. If you don’t buy the authority of the Church on matters that it is eminently qualified and divinely commissioned to decide upon, you should really ask yourself why you are Catholic (assuming that you are). A Catholic cannot pick and choose what they like, they must take the Church lock, stock, and barrel. However, this isn’t an unreasonable demand-this is a choice that is made in faith and love on the part of the Faithful.

 

[Potato1]

ComradeAndrei:

Well, what more do you want, and what is this “murkiness” of history? Do we need to reopen the Canon of Scripture because of the Gnostic “gospels”? Unless you want to consult revisionist historians, I think history is pretty clear-there was never a woman priest (at least not in orthodox Christianity).

However, history isn’t infallible, thus we look to the Church. The Church has declared that women cannot be priests, most recently when Pope John Paul II stated that the Church doesn’t even have the authority to make women priests IF it even wanted to-how much clearer can it be?

Like basically all issues of theology and religion, it comes back to authority. If you don’t buy the authority of the Church on matters that it is eminently qualified and divinely commissioned to decide upon, you should really ask yourself why you are Catholic (assuming that you are). A Catholic cannot pick and choose what they like, they must take the Church lock, stock, and barrel. However, this isn’t an unreasonable demand-this is a choice that is made in faith and love on the part of the Faithful.

I second that. Where can I find where JPII said that?

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I’m pretty sure it was posted somewhere on this thread, but here it is again-

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

The Holy Father cuts right to the chase, this is the opening paragraph-

1. Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches.

There is no room for argument of this point.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

This is the second paragraph of section 4 of the Pope’s Letter where he says that the Church doesn’t have the authority to confer ordination on women. Note he also says that “this judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” I think that is probably about the closest thing to an extraordinary excercise of the Magisterium that Pope John Paul II made during his pontificate. It is certainly and without question an excercise of the Ordinary Magisterium and certainly demands our assent.

 

[Liberalsaved]

lag:

If Jesus had wanted women to be priests He would have invited them to the last supper. Women aren’t priests because they aren’t qualified or not worthy of the calling. It’s a costitutive element of the Sacrament of Holy Orders–any pope, council or bishop can’t change it. The church can’t change what constitutes valid matter for any of the seven sacraments. Sacred tradition, nearly 2000 years old, has never had an instance of women priests. Jesus didn’t ordain any women or call any of them to be apostles–thus even excluding his mother. The male priest represents the male Christ (groom of the church). Women don’t fit into that typology.

The Last Supper as we think we know it is mostly from that painting, which also depicts jesus looking very renaissance and not at all like he ought to look. It’s dealt with pretty briefly in the Bible, and scholars beleive he would have had others there who were not disciples due to the customs of the day. And they would have lay down to take the meal, and the holy grial is probably a stone cup mixed in with any number of others, lots of things in our common picture that would not fit with a poor carpenter turned prophet (in earth terms) of the day.

And don’t roll out Da Vinci Code on me, I never said anything about that.

 

[Potato1]

Liberalsaved:

The Last Supper as we think we know it is mostly from that painting, which also depicts jesus looking very renaissance and not at all like he ought to look. It’s dealt with pretty briefly in the Bible, and scholars beleive he would have had others there who were not disciples due to the customs of the day. And they would have lay down to take the meal, and the holy grial is probably a stone cup mixed in with any number of others, lots of things in our common picture that would not fit with a poor carpenter turned prophet (in earth terms) of the day.

And don’t roll out Da Vinci Code on me, I never said anything about that.

Maybe that is how you picture the Last supper but some of us go by the Gospels. Oh yeah and by JC SUperstar

Scholars believe…who, what scholars? Catholic scholars? secular scholars, scholars believe alot of things, some believe the holocaust didn’t happen. Some scholars claim mohammed as the main prophet. what is your point?

 

[mikew262]

Potato1:

Maybe that is how you picture the Last supper but some of us go by the Gospels. Oh yeah and by JC SUperstar

Scholars believe…who, what scholars? Catholic scholars? secular scholars, scholars believe alot of things, some believe the holocaust didn’t happen. Some scholars claim mohammed as the main prophet. what is your point?

I think his point is nobody really knows who was at the Last Supper besides what is taught in the gospels and what we have seen in paintings (which really means nothing). IOW, we know the 12 apostles were with Jesus, but that is all we know.

BTW, I’m supporting or non-supporting any issue here, just trying to clarify what Liberalsaved’s post mean’t.

 

[Potato1]

mikew262:

I think his point is nobody really knows who was at the Last Supper besides what is taught in the gospels and what we have seen in paintings (which really means nothing). IOW, we know the 12 apostles were with Jesus, but that is all we know.

BTW, I’m supporting or non-supporting any issue here, just trying to clarify what Liberalsaved’s post mean’t.

Oh it was crystal clear. and you are missing some info here, the twelve were named, we know they were male and we know that they were chosen for a reason. There is more that we know, we know what they did after supper and even most of the next day. We also know about thier characters in later NT books such as acts or pauline letters, etc etc. Liberal saved, (don’t know the gender but from earlier posts I would guess female?) has a great habit of accusations and points but never comes back with facts, see earlier posts in this thread. LS comes out with these ideas and statements like what we know of the last supper is from a painting, this is simply not true and I would like some backing on that position. please please please read the earlier parts of thread adn you will see that LS’s position is what he or she would like not what any of us who have posted facts after facts after facts have stated.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Potato1:

Oh it was crystal clear. and you are missing some info here, the twelve were named, we know they were male and we know that they were chosen for a reason. There is more that we know, we know what they did after supper and even most of the next day. We also know about thier characters in later NT books such as acts or pauline letters, etc etc. Liberal saved, (don’t know the gender but from earlier posts I would guess female?) has a great habit of accusations and points but never comes back with facts, see earlier posts in this thread. LS comes out with these ideas and statements like what we know of the last supper is from a painting, this is simply not true and I would like some backing on that position. please please please read the earlier parts of thread adn you will see that LS’s position is what he or she would like not what any of us who have posted facts after facts after facts have stated.

All I said was exactly what the previous poster says I said. Words put in my mouth=I get nasty. Got it?

 

[Potato1]

Liberalsaved:

All I said was exactly what the previous poster says I said. Words put in my mouth=I get nasty. Got it?

Sure thing, any facts yet on your position, start with any of my questions posted previously, wouldn’t want you to get nasty.

Soooo, waiting for your response, please don’t get nasty, just get accurate.