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?

[Sarcelle]

Even the pre Vatican 2 mass did not forbid women from partaking in Holy Communion. The Church has never forbidden women from partaking in Communion but you seem to be keen to do so.

Again partaking of the Body and Blood is required for Salvation. Without it women cannot be saved. You did not address this point. Communion was instituted by Christ to save His people, both male and female. He did not institute it to create an all male club.

The only time one is adviced against partaking in Communion is when one is not in a state of grace. Participating in the Sacrament of Reconciliation is often adviced for those not in a state of grace.

 

[Sarcelle]

Very young children are covered because they lack moral agency. There is a reason why by age seven children can receive their First Communion. This is the age that the Church has deemed children capable of making moral decisions.

Are you implying women lack moral agency? This flies in the face of Church teaching.

You do know that women receiving Communion has been standard practice in the Church?

 

[NuclearReceptor]

You have got to be kidding me. I’ve never heard such ridiculous nonsense. We need not entertain discussing such heretical hogwash.

 

[Sarcelle]

Yeah. Good idea

 

[AlNg]

Again partaking of the Body and Blood is required for Salvation.

It is? You say it is a requirement for Salvation? That would exclude a whole lot of people, including Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists.

 

[Sarcelle]

Maybe salvation was the wrong word.

Eternal life maybe.

Jesus was very clear about partaking of His Body and Blood and its necessity in attaining eternal life.

 

[Zaccheus]

Probably correct about women not mattering either way, but my point is a males only communion would strengthen the intentionality of the Mass experience by focusing on the power of God’s Love for Man.

Did you intend to imply that God does not love women?

 

[Mary888]

How about many other women saints and martyrs who never expressed desire to become priests nor did they deem it worthy to comment or criticise the all-men society of priesthood?

 

[Elizabeth3]

Actually, Christ as the Bridegroom was really and truly present at the Last Supper as HImself. He didn’t need anyone to stand in persona Christi because He was there to give the Apostles who are Bride in relation to Him, His Body and Blood. He instituted the priesthood, beginning with the Apostles because after His death He would no longer be among us. Priests now stand as the Bridegroom in the person of Christ and all who come to receive Christ are Bride. If anyone would be excluded from communion, if we are going to boil things down to just the sex of the person, it would be men because women are the true sign of the Church as bride.

Of course, what is the sign of something or someone in this case, doesn’t exclude other members from participating in what they actually are, which is the Body of the Church, the Bride of Christ.

 

[Zaccheus]

As for not participating in communion, there are times already now when not all present are called to participate, like at wedding and funeral Masses when Protestants, other religions and non-believers are present,

“Non-Christians don’t receive the Eucharist, therefore women shouldn’t receive.”

Leaving the thread now.

 

[Thom18]

It is? You say it is a requirement for Salvation? That would exclude a whole lot of people, including Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists.

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

[PJM]

Jesus selected only men as apostles. This is taken to indicate that he did not want women to be priests or bishops. He gave his body and blood only to men. Why does this not indicate that women should not receive communion

Actually Sacred Tradition holds that Jesus gave Communion to ALL present in the Room, including Mary His Mother and what other women were present. The Gift of Ministry though was for His Priestly Apostles and their successors.

WHY?

Because if all of the Universe; HUMANITY alone is made in the Image and Likeness of GOD. Gen 1:26-27 as being RATIONAL.

“Male AND FEMALE” HE CREATED THEM

God never intended the species to be of unequal worth; ONLY with different ministries.

 

[FiveLinden]

Actually Sacred Tradition holds that Jesus gave Communion to ALL present in the Room, including Mary His Mother and what other women were present.

Is there are source for this?

 

[JimG]

It’s simple. A woman cannot be a priest because she is not a man.

Jesus is a man. A priest acts in the person of Jesus.

To put it more colloquially, a woman can not be a father. A man can not be a mother.

 

[simpleas]

I have never found a understandable answer as to what a male human does within the sacraments that a female person can not do…On the surface it seems to be just the look, that of a man to resemble the man Jesus, which is fair enough…but to suggest a woman can not administer the sacraments, because, well, she is not a he, is bizarre IMO. Sacraments are of a supernatural nature, not just a male nature.

 

[JimG]

I consider it pretty certain that had the Son become incarnate as a woman, men would not be priests. And the reason would be, because they are not women.

 

[sko]

It is incorrect to say that sacraments are merely of supernatural nature. As per the Cathechism:

“Seated at the right hand of the Father” and pouring out the Holy Spirit on his Body which is the Church, Christ now acts through the sacraments he instituted to communicate his grace. The sacraments are perceptible signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify.

So sacraments are supernatural, since Christ Himself acts through them. Yet they have a perceptible form (indeed, they are perceptible signs) which, when violated in essential elements, renders the sacrament invalid; thus there is such a thing as legal matter for the Eucharist, the requirement for the priest to say “I absolve you” for the penitent to actually be absolved etc, or for the Trinitarian formula to be used for baptism.

 

[PJM]

Actually Sacred Tradition holds that Jesus gave Communion to ALL present in the Room, including Mary His Mother and what other women were present

Is there are source for this?

THANK YOU, thank you, thank you.

I was too exuberant in my reply:zipper_mouth_face:

I SHOULD have only said “Tradition”; NOT Sacred Tradition

The difference being that “Traditions” are human - logic engineered {common sense}; while Sacred Traditions are God Inspired and Guided.

The Last Supper meal was on PASSOVER, so it was a Seder-Meal.

More than 20 years ago when I was still teaching in the classroom; our group of Juniors and Seniors were invited to participate in a Seder-Meal; t was awesome; a true ritual meal. To be able to duplicate the Last Supper meal {without the institution of the Eucharist} was an incredible teaching moment for all of us.

We later invited them to a Mass at our parish. Then had drinks and snacks and allowed the students to mingle

God BLESS you my friend, for catching this error on my part

Patrick

 

[simpleas]

So basically what is being taught is God would never use a female to perform his Sacraments through. Females do not have the correct matter (whatever that may mean).

Glad many are certain of this.

I’m just not that convinced.

 

[Fauken]

So basically what is being taught is God would never use a female to perform his Sacraments through.

That is not correct. Women can baptize and administer the sacrament of matrimony to their spouse. With every sacrament there is a material and supernatura aspect to it. When it comes to the priesthood, in particular, since the recipient becomes able to act as another Christ, only a man can receive it. Let’s say there’s a movie being cast about the life of Christ. The people to audition are in one room. There are nine women and one man. Who would be cast? The man. Why? Because Christ was a man, and what sense would there be in assigning Christ to a female when He was not?