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?

[Elizabeth3]

n any case one need only read parts of The Summa Theologiæ of St. Thomas Aquinas to get an idea of why the teaching of the ministerial priesthood is reserved for men only.

St. Thomas (I’m not a scholar so take my understanding and lack of proper philosophical terms FWIW) was definitely influenced by Aristotle and the culture at that time. It was very much thought that women were inferior to men. (Now we say that men and women are different but complementary rather than using the language of inferior/superior, which I think is a good development.) Thomas made the point that women’s inferiority is not because there was something bad or defective about women but that in order for the universe to reflect God there had to be diversity or different degrees of perfection so we could see the beauty of order. God is not a God of chaos but of order. Woman as woman, (even in her supposed inferiority) is perfect because she is made with the abilities and powers that she is supposed to have as woman to attain her temporal and spiritual ends. This inferiority is accidental just as man’s superiority is accidental and are just ways that the beauty of order is displayed so as to more fully reflect God. This has nothing to do with the equality of women and men being made in the image of God as stated in Genesis.

These accidents of nature in the natural order are there as signs that teach us that there is a hierarchical order and degrees of perfection in the spiritual order. In the order of grace where things really count and are not just signs of things but reality, there is nothing that holds women back from attaining higher degrees of perfection than men. This is most evident in the Blessed Mother, who is higher than the angels.

On Fatherhood and Motherhood
The Church’s understanding is that God has within Him all the perfections of both fatherhood and motherhood so we know that both of these are good and neither one should be disparaged because to do so would be to disparage what is God. However, in relation to His creation, God is Father as “the first origin and transcendent authority.” and He is also Father of the Son, who was begotten and not made. The man is the sign by nature of this Fatherhood and is therefore the fitting sacramental sign for the priesthood. It doesn’t mean men are better, more worthy, more spiritual, etc than women. It means they are the fit or proper sign of Fatherhood and to stand in persona Christi.

 

[Elizabeth3]

I also want to mention that if the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas isn’t your cup of tea you may want to read the blog by Alice C. Linsley who is a Biblical Anthropologist. She explains the origins of the priesthood from our ancient ancestors and their views of the different blood-work of women (life-giving) and men (killing/sacrifice). She offers compelling evidence of why we shouldn’t mess with the signs that point to higher realities because they are ontological to the priesthood and we would corrupt it so that it no longer points to Christ as the High Priest. Corruption can lead to all sorts problems like it did for the priests who didn’t recognize Christ due to their own self-serving use of the priesthood.

Anyway, here are two links that are just fascinating from a Biblical Anthropological POV.

Why Women Were Never Priests

The Tradition concerning the all-male priesthood is about the Blood. This is why a male may stand at the altar, but not a woman. The ...

jandyongenesis.blogspot.com

The Priesthood is About the Blood

Alice C. Linsley Speaking from the perspective of Biblical Anthropology, the priesthood of the Church stands in continuity with the...

jandyongenesis.blogspot.com

 

[simpleas]

Thanks for the links.

Yes she points out the women were never allowed at the altar’s etc.

I believe Jesus was the last blood sacrifice, he is the new creation, yet we hold onto the old.

Seems most women are happy to be second to men before God, and this is true when you really think about what the church teaches, and so it should, because it’s the tradition etc.

I remain unconvinced at the moment, and that’s for me to work on.

Thanks again.

 

[Fauken]

Seems most women are happy to be second to men before God, and this is true when you really think about what the church teaches, and so it should, because it’s the tradition etc.

None of us, men or women, believe we are second to men before God, and that does not seem to be in line with Church tradition either. We do not base our worth on what men can and cannot do, as that is a false comparison. Just like how I showed you in the example of women being able to conceive and be consecrated virgins. If anything, men should be second class by that logic, because the greatest and most perfect human being (besides Christ who was also God) to have existed was female.

 

[neophyte]

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?

Because women have always received communion, just as they always participated at the Passover meal. They’ve never been ordained to the Priesthood.

 

[Lea101]

Seems most women are happy to be second to men before God, and this is true when you really think about what the church teaches, and so it should, because it’s the tradition etc

I wouldn’t say ‘happy’. There are women who struggle with it, and there are women who genuinely don’t feel as if they’re second place.

Anyway, if God says women are second, is it really worth fighting back?

 

[Elizabeth3]

I believe Jesus was the last blood sacrifice, he is the new creation, yet we hold onto the old

His is the perpetual sacrifice that is ever present before God in heaven. His sacrifice “…is the new covenant in my blood…” (1 Corinthians 11:25) Just because it’s a new covenant doesn’t mean we do away with the meaning of all the signs that the sacrifices under the Old Law were pointing to or represented. Matthew Ch 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…”

There is nothing that says that just because it’s a new covenant that we can make up things as we go. The priesthood under the new covenant re-presents the perpetual sacrifice of Christ as the Lamb. The male priesthood is still a sign of Christ our High Priest.

More in next comment…

 

[Elizabeth3]

Seems most women are happy to be second to men before God, and this is true when you really think about what the church teaches, and so it should, because it’s the tradition etc.

Perhaps you think that because women aren’t a fit sign of Christ on the altar that it implies women’s unfittingness means we are second to men or we aren’t good enough to be a sign of Christ. That IS NOT what the male priesthood means. Christ represents all of humanity so a male priest standing in persona Christi, means all of humanity is represented as well.

Maybe if I explain it this way, it will help.

Suppose a person has a vicious outdoor cat that will scratch and claw at any stranger that gets near it but that person puts up a beware of dog sign. When the stranger approaches the property and sees the sign, they are aware they should be cautious but they are looking for a dog. When the cat approaches, they don’t recognize the cat as the danger they should be cautious about because the “beware of dog” sign was not a fit or sufficient sign to point to what the stranger should be looking for.

The Jewish people were looking for a male messiah born of a virgin woman much like the burnt offerings were males without blemish and, of course, they were born of females.

If there is a woman priest on the altar saying “This is my body…This is my blood,” It is not a fit sign of Christ because Christ in his humanity, is a male BORN OF A WOMAN. (A virgin woman who knew not man, in the case of Christ.) Do you see how in a male priest both sexes are represented in a way that in a female “priest” born of a woman is not a sign of both sexes in Christ but only half of humanity? The Christ you see on the cross is male in form but the flesh is all from a woman-The Blessed Mother.

St. Augustine wrote “But by being born of a woman, He purposed to show to us some high mystery…For as He could be born of a woman without a man, so could He also have been born without the woman. But this has He shown us, that mankind of neither sex might despair of its salvation, for the human sexes are male and female…Let no one then reproach Christ with His birth of a woman, by which sex the Deliverer could not be defiled, and to which it was in the purpose of the Creator to do honour.”

A woman “priest” born of a woman on the altar is not a fit sign of Christ not because there is something inferior or bad or unworthy about women but because she wouldn’t signify that all of humanity has been redeemed. When we look for Christ, we expect to see a man born of a woman. If we don’t see that on the altar, we don’t see Christ who redeemed all of humanity, not just males because he was male but women as well because He was born of a woman “without the help of a man.”

 

[Elizabeth3]

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?

Because his body and blood was “of a woman who knew not man” but in the form of a man.

Both sexes are represented in Christ’s humanity if you are truly listening to the Word of God. “Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?” Mk 8:18

 

[simpleas]

Anyway, if God says women are second, is it really worth fighting back?

No it wouldn’t, but then I wouldn’t want to worship a God like that.

 

[simpleas]

If there is a woman priest on the altar saying “This is my body…This is my blood,” It is not a fit sign of Christ because Christ in his humanity, is a male BORN OF A WOMAN. (A virgin woman who knew not man, in the case of Christ.) Do you see how in a male priest both sexes are represented in a way that in a female “priest” born of a woman is not a sign of both sexes in Christ but only half of humanity? The Christ you see on the cross is male in form but the flesh is all from a woman-The Blessed Mother.

This is true for Jesus, being born of a woman and having no male parent, but a Godly one.
Not the same for non Divine male born of both man and woman.

I understand the sign explained, Jesus was male so therefore only males be priests.

As you said Christ represents ALL of humanity male and female, but only the male is looked upon as worthy to carry out the Sacraments.

Thanks for taking time to explain.

 

[NuclearReceptor]

Only one creature, a woman, was deemed more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim.

 

[Elizabeth3]

This is true for Jesus, being born of a woman and having no male parent, but a Godly one.

Not the same for non Divine male born of both man and woman.

Of course it’s not the same because the human male can only be a sign of Christ as man born of a woman. A human male is from a human male and female. Christ has a heavenly father and a human mother. A sign of something is not the reality of it. A sign showing falling rocks is not actual falling rocks. A human male born of a woman is not actually Christ born of the Virgin Mary.

I understand the sign explained, Jesus was male so therefore only males be priests.

…well you left out “born of a woman” which is an important part of the sign.

As you said Christ represents ALL of humanity male and female, but only the male is looked upon as worthy to carry out the Sacraments.

I didn’t say only the male is looked upon as worthy to carry out the Sacraments. I went out of my way to say that it has nothing to do with being worthy and everything to do with being a proper sign. If it had to do with being worthy then why does the priest say "“Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” before he takes communion? It’s because sign or not, he is not worthy as a sinner and needs Christ in the Eucharist as much as the rest of the Body of Christ who come up for Communion. If the priesthood is about being worthy then priests would have no need of confession. If the priesthood of old was about men being worthy to offer animal sacrifice, they would have not needed to follow all the purity rituals and law in order to enter the sanctuary.

If one thinks women should be priests because they are worthy to carry out the Sacraments, then that is a big sign they are NOT being called to the ministerial priesthood.

 

[Talitha712]

Seems most women are happy to be second to men before God, and this is true when you really think about what the church teaches, and so it should, because it’s the tradition etc.

I remain unconvinced at the moment, and that’s for me to work on.

I had a thought which might help you (if it doesn’t don’t worry about it, what works for one doesn’t always work for another!) But when I struggled with something similar, I found it helped to just focus on the love of God.

To explain, the thing that bothered me was the Gospel where a woman approached Jesus to ask Him to cure her daughter. At first she is ignored, the Apostles want her sent away, and when Jesus does acknowledge her, it’s to tell her “it’s wrong to take the food of the children and give it to the dogs.” When I was old enough to understand this, I was floored. Did He really - just liken her daughter to a dog? I wondered. Were my ancestors, who served God faithfully despite cruel persecution, were they dogs too, because they came from pagans rather than Jews? Was I like a dog to Him? If I was in that woman’s shoes, I wouldn’t have had the faith or the humility to say anything like “But even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” I would have left in tears, crushed by the thought that I and my daughter were worth no more than little dogs in the eyes of God, while the Jews were loved like children.

But of course, that isn’t so. We are all God’s children. He sent His Son to save us all. So if I take away the thought of comparing God’s Love for me to, say, what He has for a priest, or a victim soul, or that random person in the other pew who seems in better place spiritually…if I just focus on Jesus suffering and dying for ME, His Heart of mercy opening wide for ME - God’s Own Son did this, for little ol’ me! Then I don’t care what place He assigns me, it doesn’t matter anymore. I do not believe women are second to men, just different, but I wouldn’t object if God said otherwise. Heck, if I had the great fortune of going to Heaven, and God pointed me out before all the saints and angels, and said, “See this one? This woman is the lowest of you, the one who required the most Mercy to get here,” I honestly think I would just be so happy to be there at all. Hehe what mere dog was ever so loved?

But these are just my two cents, make of them what you will

 

[Mark121359]

(I’m not a scholar so take my understanding and lack of proper philosophical terms FWIW)

Well, you could’ve fooled me!!! An outstanding post by the way!

 

[simpleas]

Of course it’s not the same because the human male can only be a sign of Christ as man born of a woman. A human male is from a human male and female. Christ has a heavenly father and a human mother. A sign of something is not the reality of it. A sign showing falling rocks is not actual falling rocks. A human male born of a woman is not actually Christ born of the Virgin Mary.

I didn’t say only the male is looked upon as worthy to carry out the Sacraments.

I was quoting what you said “Christ represents ALL of humanity male and female”… yet the male is looked upon as worthy to carry out the Sacraments and the female isn’t hence why there are no female priests.

“All who are baptised in Christ, have put on Christ. There is no longer any discrimination between Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female.” Galatians 3,28

 

[Fauken]

That verse does not mean there is no differences between the sexes. St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians directs the women to cover their heads (1 Corinthians 11:1-16). If there were truly no differences as you seem to be implying, then St. Paul would be directing both to do so.

 

[simpleas]

And what are the differences? Man is the image and glory of God and woman the glory of man…

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

St Paul seems to contradict himself when he says…

Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.

 

[simpleas]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Elizabeth3]

I was quoting what you said “Christ represents ALL of humanity male and female”… yet the male is looked upon as worthy to carry out the Sacraments and the female isn’t hence why there are no female priests.

When I say a sign of something is not the reality of it (meaning it’s not the actual thing), it means that the sign will differ in some ways than the actual thing. However, that difference should not be so different as to make what the sign is pointing to unrecognizable. Like my example of the vicious cat but the sign says beware of dog. It would mean that you wouldn’t recognize the cat because the sign wasn’t a proper sign of the cat. It didn’t point to what you were supposed to see.

If one is looking to see Christ really present at the altar in His perpetual sacrifice saying This is my Body…This is my Blood, one would expect to see a “man born of a woman” rather than a “woman born of a woman” because the Scriptures tell us that is what to look for. The body of a woman doesn’t look anything like the body of a man so it doesn’t signify Christ as a man born of a woman.

Is 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

You keep using the word worthy. It has nothing to do with being worthy. It has everything to do with being a proper sign. Yes, “all of humanity is represented in Christ” but we can’t stop with just that phrase as our criteria because to be a proper sign of the Sacrifice it matters as to HOW both sexes are represented. The male sex is represented because Christ is male. The female sex is represented because the actual flesh that makes up that male form was from a woman who did not know man. He got his flesh from her. It was not a woman’s form that was hanging on the cross. We wouldn’t recognize her as Christ because she doesn’t fit the sign of what the Scriptures say to look for.

“All who are baptised in Christ, have put on Christ. There is no longer any discrimination between Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female.” Galatians 3,28

In regards to baptism, we are all one in Christ Jesus. Yes. But the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is what is being made present to us in the sacrament of the Eucharist. That sacrifice is not signified by a woman’s body on the cross. Her flesh, yes. But the form of her body, no. The priest in persona Christi is the more fitting sign of Christ on the Cross. Edited to add - And at the Last Supper as well.