The Church teaches that women cannot be priests because of the example set by Jesus in selecting the apostles. So why are women allowed communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So I started this thread because it seemed to me that the most common reason advanced for not having women priests is that Jesus chose only male apostles. So, I thought, as he only gave the eucharist to men, why does the same principle not apply? I’d like to thank everyone who replied and also the posters who took the thread down some unexpected paths. However, I still have heard nothing that undermines the view I’m arming that there is a big contradiction here. Some have said that tradition establishes that women should receive communion and that women should not be priests. Well, if tradition is the reason women cannot be priests, why bring up the apostle-selection argument? And it is brought up even in high-level documents. And some have said ‘but women were at the last supper’. Well, the Gospels do not say so. And if you can say 'there were women in the upper room and they shared the eucharist, then I can say ‘Jesus also chose women apostles, but the Gospels don’t mention it’. My personal additions to scripture are as good as yours! So if you want to persuade me you will have to find another argument 🙂
 
Dude, you have gotten good replies.

Male priesthood is as such because the person is standing in place of Christ.

There’s none of that in the Eucharist. Jesus said that His body gives eternal life. Why would women not be included in that? There’s no need for a gender restriction on that. Nobody is standing in place of Christ when receiving. In fact, we would be the Church (feminine). And he was preaching to a large crowd. Do you really think he had only male followers?
 
Lea101 said:
Dude, you have gotten good replies.
Click to expand...
This. You are trying to apply the same criteria of what is proper for one thing to what is proper for something completely different.

It’s clear from Scripture that women were involved in the early worship of the Church which would include partaking of the Eucharist. The discourse in John 6, would also refute your reasoning. Pope Benedict XVI also wrote about how the Last Supper was not the usual Passover meal that would have taken place on a Friday. There would have been no roasted lamb because that wouldn’t have been served before Friday. This is because Christ was the sacrificial lamb. The Last Supper was a new Passover so the arguments that women were always included in this meal or at least served it, wouldn’t necessarily have taken place due to the unique nature of this particular meal that Christ shared with His Apostles. The fact that women were most likely not there, has nothing to do with whether they can receive the Eucharist. The Apostles understood, taught and by practice did indeed include women in receiving.

Pope Benedict wrote, “One thing emerges clearly from the entire tradition: Essentially, this farewell meal was not the old Passover, but the new one, which Jesus accomplished in this context. Even though the meal that Jesus shared with the Twelve was not a Passover meal according to the ritual prescriptions of Judaism, nevertheless, in retrospect, the inner connection of the whole event with Jesus’ death and Resurrection stood out clearly. It was Jesus’ Passover. And in this sense He both did and did not celebrate the Passover: The old rituals could not be carried out — when their time came, Jesus had already died. But He had given Himself, and thus He had truly celebrated the Passover with them. The old was not abolished; it was simply brought to its full meaning” (Jesus of Nazareth, p. 114).

Christ shared this Last Supper with His Apostles because they would be the ones who would carry out the New Covenant meal for the people. Rather than priests slaughtering and roasting lamb for the Passover, Christ is the Lamb and the Bread and Wine shared would be the New Covenant in His Blood that they would bless and break. He was teaching them the new way to carry out the Passover Meal.

Tradition isn’t the only reason women cannot be priests. There was a male priesthood all the way back to the beginning of the Word of God. There is nothing in Scripture that says this had changed under the New Covenant and everything that indicates that it remained the same.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know if you are familiar with the Catholic mass, but when the Eucharist is being celebrated the words are spoken like this -

“On the night he was betrayed, Jesus said to his disciples … ”

Disciples seems to be more of an inclusive word as in men and women were disciples as are members of the church.
The word is not Apostles, which would mean the 12 men who are depicted in a painting we all think of when the image of the last supper enters our minds.

I came across this article which touches on what I was saying about certain ways of thinking between men and women that may have helped stop some unpleasant issues take place in the church, but it’s that unexpected path…

And this brings us back to women. Pope Francis has noted that there needs to be a new and deeper theology of woman (July 2013).[2] Many Catholic feminist theologians would argue that we already have that theology. It’s just that the men who run the show have not yet chosen to accept it. Theologians like Elizabeth Johnson argue that we could start by reviewing our images of God. An underlying theme in “Trapped in a closed world” is the old image of God as a patriarchal, all-knowing, disciplinarian father figure. Sound familiar? Maybe a little too familiar. Starting with challenging the old male image of God may well be a good starting place for reviewing and rewriting some of our out-of-date theologies around women and their role in the family, society and the Church.

johnmenadue.com

DONELLA JOHNSTON. Why women should run the Catholic Church. - Pearls and Irritations

You know an idea is starting to become mainstream when you read about it in the Australian Women’s Weekly. “Why women should run the Catholic Church” is an article that appeared in the September edition of the Weekly. Penned by journalist Susan Chenery, the article begins “Men have formed the...
johnmenadue.com johnmenadue.com

Note - I do not think women should run the church solely, but they should definitely be included along side men of the church (hierarchy)
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
So I started this thread because it seemed to me that the most common reason advanced for not having women priests is that Jesus chose only male apostles. So, I thought, as he only gave the eucharist to men, why does the same principle not apply? I’d like to thank everyone who replied and also the posters who took the thread down some unexpected paths. However, I still have heard nothing that undermines the view I’m arming that there is a big contradiction here. Some have said that tradition establishes that women should receive communion and that women should not be priests. Well, if tradition is the reason women cannot be priests, why bring up the apostle-selection argument? And it is brought up even in high-level documents. And some have said ‘but women were at the last supper’. Well, the Gospels do not say so. And if you can say 'there were women in the upper room and they shared the eucharist, then I can say ‘Jesus also chose women apostles, but the Gospels don’t mention it’. My personal additions to scripture are as good as yours! So if you want to persuade me you will have to find another argument 🙂
Click to expand...
Well you come to that conclusion because first you assume the main reason is that Jesus only had men at the last supper when clearly several posters gave you a few more common and frankly important reasons why. That you chose to ignore these reasons tells me that you are more interested in the fight than the truth. A perfect example of how you swish away a very reasonable response to your claim is at the very beginning of the thread. Post 3 by Fauken is deliberatley ignored. You should be more open to the truth. It is easier to see when it is right in front of you!
 
Imdaman said:
Post 3 by Fauken is deliberatley ignored. You should be more open to the truth. It is easier to see when it is right in front of you!
Click to expand...
I thought my response to post 3 in post 4 was ok. Did you not? And I certainly did not ignore it.
 
That does not answer my post. The one I linked was in response to post 4.
 
Now I am confused (easily done, brain ageing). Can you please repeat the point I am failing to respond to? Or ‘to which I am failing to respond’ if ending sentences with prepositions is not your thing?
 
^^^ this.
It only 284 posts to get the answer. Congrats CajonJoy
 
That would be post six. Post 279’s text is a link to it, but here’s another:
40.png
The Church teaches that women cannot be priests because of the example set by Jesus in selecting the apostles. So why are women allowed communion? Apologetics
Where in John 6 does it say that? That is incorrect. Mary herself acknowledges God as her savior in her Magnificat. In her case, Christ’s timeless sacrifice was applied to her at her conception to keep her from sin at birth.
Click to expand...
 
Fauken said:
Where in John 6 does it say that?

That is incorrect. Mary herself acknowledges God as her savior in her Magnificat. In her case, Christ’s timeless sacrifice was applied to her at her conception to keep her from sin at birth
Click to expand...
OK. Got you. What I am saying is that in the accounts of Jesus selecting Apostles, only men are mentioned. At the last supper, only men are mentioned. The John 6 statements were made while teaching in the synagogue, so are again addressed to men.
 
FiveLinden said:
The John 6 statements were made while teaching in the synagogue, so are again addressed to men.
Click to expand...
EDIT: I’m not sure I see nor have I found anything that shows that synagogues were filled only with men. Even Orthodox Jews today have women in the synagogue, albeit separated from the men. And even if there is a part of the synagogue that did not allow women to be in it, John 6 makes no such mention that this was done in that part of the synagogue. I would think that would be significant, since earlier Jesus got off a boat and was greeted by a crowd. It makes no sense for John to not mention Jesus basically dismissing a portion of the crowd. Jesus doesn’t shoo children away when they come to Him, but He brushes women away before He makes one of His most profound theological points? It does not make sense. The Eucharist being given only to men still does not make sense, nor is a good comparison to the priesthood. It also does not dismiss the main and most significant point of all, that is that the recipient of Holy Orders becomes another Christ, which only men can do. We cannot be Christ like how a man can just like a man cannot be like Mary. It is not a mark against the female gender, it is not sinking women to a second class position, it is difference between motherhood and fatherhood.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t read the entire thread.

We are allowed communion because we need Christ
 
Not sure if your comment is aimed at me or the article?

Emotional blackmail seems to be the answer to some Catholics when they disagree with some church teachings, the old Catholic guilt is ingrained in a lot of people.

Also I don’t see why woman being part of the hierarchy is such an insult.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top