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?

[simpleas]

The way I have thought about it is, Jesus had both men and woman in his followers, men are named only as apostles in scripture, but who knows which women may have been active in carrying out what Jesus said at the last supper and in the upper room.
Men and women were both present.

The ‘sign’ ‘appearance’ etc of a male on the altar does help people to think of God as being a He.
Yet when the consecration happens, it is Christ who pours out his Graces, it is always Christ, not a human man or woman. So the priest beginning either sex could be a ‘vessel’ for Christ to use and administer his Sacraments.

 

[Lea101]

The way I kind of see it is that God revealed his relationship to us in masculine terms. Hence the priesthood being tied to fatherhood. So if there are female priests, that kind of defeats it (like do we call her mother?).

I don’t know if the whole man born out of woman explanation is the infallible interpretation. I’ve never heard it before this thread happened. Maybe it’s a personal interpretation based on studying?

 

[Elizabeth3]

SO if the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and the Church is the Bride of Christ, then is not Christ in His Mystical Body female, and his his Mystical Body not present in the Eucharist and, if so, why can a woman not confect the Eucharist?

Because we are at Mass and there are certain spiritual realities being conveyed that won’t be conveyed correctly if a woman is on the altar. Here is what the USCCB tells us about the Liturgy of the Eucharist

"The Eucharistic Prayers make clear that these prayers are offered, not to Christ, but to the Father. It is worship offered to the Father by Christ as it was at the moment of his passion, death and resurrection, but now it is offered through the priest acting in the person of Christ, and it is offered as well by all of the baptized, who are part of Christ’s Body, the Church. This is the action of Christ’s Body, the Church at Mass."

So we see by the two highlighted parts what is happening. First, the priest’s role is to offer worship to the Father acting as the person of Christ the Head and presenting the actual offering and prayer of Christ in His Passion. Christ is male and Christ is the Head. The priest is an icon of this. A woman can’t be an icon of the male Christ. If you were to paint a picture of Christ, you wouldn’t paint a woman. If Christ were to appear on earth today, He would appear as a man. So no, a woman, who represents the Body/Bride/Church, wouldn’t be the proper sign of the one to stand in the person of Christ the Head and pray to the Father making the offering of His passion and death. The priest is speaking (ex persona capitis) as the person of Christ the Head. The Body of Christ is already there praying as (ex persona corporis) as the person of Christ the Body, which is the second highlighted part above.

The CCC tells us how, when we are at Mass, Head and Body are joined as one.

"This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? “The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church.” And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.” They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself “bride”

 

[Elizabeth3]

As far as I have been reading posts and understanding them in this thread, I took the meaning that men can represent women because men are born of women and so share their flesh, but a woman isn’t born of a man so she can not represent a male.

Hmm… I hadn’t been following closely enough to see that notion develop. I’ll look back through the thread and see if I can find those posts…

That’s not an accurate notion of what I way saying, especially the part I bolded.

To boil down what I was trying to explain is that both sexes make their own contribution to the ministerial priesthood and that in the male priest you can see the contribution of both sexes. From the male sex, we have an actual man. From the female sex, the man was actually born of her. She plays the primary part in reproduction as far as building the flesh that makes up the man by offering nutrients etc from her own body and blood. I’m trying to make clear that women aren’t left out of contributing to the ministerial priesthood. Their contribution is just different.

And it’s true that if you have a woman on the altar you will see the female contribution of the person but the male sex wouldn’t be seen. See St. Augustine’s quote below. He is showing how Christ honored both sexes by being born of a woman. The same concept applies to women who think they aren’t honored because of their sex when they can’t be priests.

“He purposed to show to us some high mystery. For of a truth, brethren, we grant too, that if the Lord had willed to become man without being born of a woman, it were easy to His sovereign Majesty. For as He could be born of a woman without a man, so could He also have been born without the woman. But this hath He shown us, that mankind of neither sex might despair of its salvation, for the human sexes are male and female…He came therefore as a man to make special choice of that sex, and was born of a woman to console the female sex, as though He would address them and say; “That ye may know that no creature of God is bad, but that unregulated pleasure perverteth it, when in the beginning I made man, I made them 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.”

 

[Elizabeth3]

I wonder what it’s like then for men to approach the altar and receive the Bridegroom? Maybe a question for another thread.

Yes. You would have to ask men that question. I suspect for them it might be more like they get the concept of what it means to be bride in that they are supposed to carry the mission of Christ out to the wider world but that rather than experiencing their union with Christ in the Eucharist as a Bride, they can identify with him as the Bridegroom and take His mission as their own.

 

[Elizabeth3]

Yeah, I’m not denying that Jesus was a Man, you do know that?

At mass, I see a man acting as Jesus, but I don’t think of the priest as being ‘another’ Jesus.

I do know you are not denying that Jesus was a man. The priest isn’t another Jesus in that you forget he is a sinner like the rest of us, but you should be able to recognize that as a man he can stand in the person of Christ in a way a woman cannot. And because of the spiritual reality that we are being shown on the altar, a woman does not represent Christ the Head. She represents Christ the Body. (see post 193)

 

[rose321]

His priesthood had nothing to do with the Levitical priesthood.

Respectfully>>12 Tribes>> are not God’s Choosen >> High Priest or Priest, reading in OT>> Aaron was The High Priest, his sons and their sons, and their sons for generations to follow, known as The Levi>Zadok Priest ( prophecies written on?) >are His choosen >>High Priest, Priestly bloodline, is this not correct?
Levi, Zadok, He choose and could offer up sacrifices upon His most Holy Altar and it would be >>>>>>acceptable into His hands, is this correct?

sources>>>>>>> found within the writtings of the Prophecies of His Prophets mention such, do they not? And the prophecies of Jesus to come, which Jesus came fulfilling the Prophecies of the Prophets, did he not?

Why, in Jesus time, there were many claiming to be the Messiah, but all had to meet>>>>>>>>>>>> theses requirements, meet the prophecies fortold of the Messiah when He comes, >>> to test, etc, within the prophecies of the Prophets they gave>>>>Why the Priests, Elders, Sanhedrin Court Council of the Jerusalem Council, many false Messiah came before them>>>>>>>> Those claiming they were the Messiah>>>had to come before>Sanhedrin Court, Priest, Elders etc>>Interesting>>Test all Spirits?

The Messiah, who would become High Priest and King of Kings, had to come from the Blood Line of God’s choosen Priest to serve upon His altar>>> just like the Messiah>>>> has to come also>>>>>>>>>> from the Bloodline of >>>>King David, King Solomon also, is this not true?

Why Matthew and Luke go through all the trouble to list Jesus blood line all the way back doing so for a reason, why?
No one could serve on His Holy Altar who did not come from the Bloodline of God’s Choosen Priest, could they?

But sadly>>>> Jerusalem had many Nations who conquered them and those who conquered them and ruled over them, put in and choose their own Priest, why?

Why Jesus was not pleased with His own Temple High Priest, Priest serving within His Temple, Elders, Pharisees, Sadduccees, nor was John the Baptist? I will destroy this Temple in 3 days? What did Jesus call them in Matthew 23 and gave them all His Woes?

Why was James the Brother of the Lord choosen and agreed by all the Apostles? Interesting and who followed after this James in Jerusalem? Interesting is all.

Zechariah (was a Priest) John Baptist father was a direct descended bloodline of whom?
Who was John Baptist mother Elizabeth a direct decented Bloodline of whom?
Elizabeth was Blessed Mary’s Aunt and sister to Anna ,mother of our Blessed Mother Mary>>whom she was also from the decended bloodline of whom?
And do not forget Jospeh?
Interesting.
Peace

 

[Elizabeth3]

Yes there are many vital roles for woman, which is great and I think it’s hopefully heading in a good direction (deaconess)

But no woman has ever lead or partly lead within the hierarchy.

So what? IF the Holy Spirit is protecting and guiding the Church into all truth and to be free of error, AND if the Pope united with the bishops stand as visible signs of Christ the Head, AND if the faithful who are a sign of Christ’s Body, support them with prayers, influence them as theologians (many of whom are women), sit on councils and boards (which more and more women now do) to advise and offer counsel, teach them in the seminaries, attend conferences to give speeches about the situation “on the ground”, write letters as groups or individuals, etc, THEN why does it matter that it’s men who speak as Christ the Head? Unless you think bishops and the Pope don’t interact with, listen closely to and are influenced by their flock through whom the Holy Spirit also speaks?

The Head isn’t floating free of the Body making judgements independent of it. The Holy Spirit unites both the Head and Body, so that when final decisions are made and the Head speaks, it speaks for the whole Christ and women are a part of the whole Christ. That’s why there are all those examples I gave you above of how women are fulfilling their part and mission as the Body of Christ. The Body has great influence over the Head.

Look at the wedding at Cana. Mary brought the situation to Christ. He pointed out that it wasn’t His time. But guess what? He did it anyway.

You either trust the Holy Spirit to unite Head and Body and to speak through both to the world and to each other (because they are distinct yet one like the Trinity), or you don’t.

 

[Elizabeth3]

No I meant that in an all female group (say nuns) the male priest is needed to consecrate the bread and wine.

Though the host could be consecrated before hand and woman/lay men can continue with a ‘mass’.

So what? Someone has to stand as Christ the Head at Mass. The Body is already there.

 

[Elizabeth3]

A woman isn’t able to receive that mark because that mark of Christ to stand in persona Christi isn’t able to be expressed truthfully according to her human nature as a female.

You most likely don’t mean this, but a statement like that makes me think that woman are just ungodly.

No, I don’t mean women are ungodly. I just mean they are women by nature. Christ by nature was male. Men by nature are male. If ontological means "relating to essence or the nature of being " then only men can be ontologically marked to stand in the person of Christ because they share the same nature in “being” male.

It has nothing to do with godliness. It has to do with nature. Godliness would have to do with grace and any woman can become more and more holy in imitation of Christ by cooperation with grace and far surpass other men in heaven. Look at Mary. Nature is just a teacher or visible picture of heavenly realities that we can interpret with our intellect so that we can know and understand God better. Males being able to be ontologically marked at ordination just tell us the truth that Christ was a man who is Son of the Father. It doesn’t tell us anything about males. It tells us something about Christ.

 

[Elizabeth3]

So the priest beginning either sex could be a ‘vessel’ for Christ to use and administer his Sacraments.

But being a vessel is not what the priesthood shows us. The Body acts as a vessel for Christ in the Mass. The priesthood shows us something about Christ as Head, not something about what the priest is. To stand in the person of Christ the Head tells us Christ came to us as a man and as God’s Son, to offer Himself to the Father in His passion, death and resurrection. Being a vessel is what the Body of Christ shows us in that we are to receive Christ and carry Him out to the wider world. The priest as an individual is a vessel and a part of the Body like the rest of us but he also stands in the person of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar.

 

[Elizabeth3]

I don’t know if the whole man born out of woman explanation is the infallible interpretation. I’ve never heard it before this thread happened. Maybe it’s a personal interpretation based on studying?

Galations 4:4 - 4But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

I’m pretty sure the Church understands and teaches that Christ formed His human flesh from His Mother. Mary gave us Christ. Mothers give us priests. When we see a priest on the altar we can see the contribution both sexes make to the ministerial priesthood. See comment 194 that explains further.

 

[Jas31784]

No one knows how many people were at the last supper. It only says his disciples with him
We think of it this way because of Davincis painting.
For all we know many people were there including women.

 

[HeDa]

The women “deaconesses” we read about in Acts were virgins (not married women) or widows. They were assisting with baptising women as that was done in the nude and the whole body was anointed with holy oil. (Imagine the scandal if a man touch a woman who isn’t his wife or mother.) Visiting sick women and bringing them Holy communion and also teaching women. I don’t think this is the kind of deaconesses you are imagining and would want today some 2000 years later. Deaconesses as a word was gone after a few centuries as by that time everyone was baptised as an infant. They were never “ordained” as a male deacon would be. Stayed on a little longer in the East than in the Western part of Christianity.

Deaconesses were set aside to prayer, teach and visit sick women (only) and bring Holy Communion to them. This is what our nuns and sisters are doing so they are the continuation of deaconesses mentioned in Acts. The monastic way of life grew from the 5th? century after starting in the deserts of mostly Egypt and Syria. Some are set aside to prayer and study while others are teaching and visiting sick and elderly or doing other work.

The commission that pope Francis set up is looking at the role of those women in the first few centuries. There was a shorter report last year (2017) but they are still working.

 

[simpleas]

So where is the feminine in God?

Christ (God) came as the son of man. Man is male and female.
God created in ‘his’ own image a male and female creature. Why create a female creature if it seems that God should only be thought of in masculine terms.

 

[catholic1seeks]

He did not give his body and blood only to men.

The Lord’s Supper/Eucharist in the New Testament is a continuation of the same Last Supper meal. And we know that the Eucharist was for both men and women from the fact that all of his disciples celebrated “the breaking of the bread.” And we know from Tradition both a better understanding of the Eucharist and the priesthood.

 

[Elizabeth3]

So where is the feminine in God?

Christ (God) came as the son of man. Man is male and female.

God created in ‘his’ own image a male and female creature. Why create a female creature if it seems that God should only be thought of in masculine terms.

God is masculine IN RELATION to his creation but that doesn’t mean the feminine and motherhood doesn’t reflect some characteristics of God. (more below on that) The masculine principle shows us that God is our origin and transcendent authority. God loved us first. We are feminine IN RELATION to God in that we come from Him and owe him obedience because of His great love for us. We receive love from Him and return that love.

God is spirit. He is not male or female. But in the Trinity we see this giving, receiving and returning of love among the Three persons. Masculine and feminine principles tell us something about these characteristics of God. Human fatherhood tells us something about the Fatherhood of God in that the father is very much “the other” when the mother is pregnant and nursing. The mother is very much “one” with her child when she is pregnant and nursing. This image of mother and child teaches us about God’s Immanence with His creation. His closeness. His tenderness.

John Paul II says
“The man—even with his sharing in parenthood—always remains “outside” the process of pregnancy and the baby’s birth; in many ways he has to learn his own “fatherhood” from the mother…”

I think what he’s getting at is that the mother has to teach the father that it’s ok to enter into relationship with the child and be tender and loving. Most of the time, this isn’t done explicitly but implicitly from the father watching the mother with the baby, other women with children or with their own relationships with women.

Women are reflect something of God’s Immanence or His “withinness” with His creation. We teach men about God’s closeness, His sharing His love with us, His always being with us. We invite them to learn empathy and enter into relationship. To give of yourself for the sake of another.

Men are a sign of God’s Transcendence. They teach us about what it means to be “other” and to realize ourselves as a person with rights and responsibilities that are separate from those around us, even our children. Sometimes moms can so identify with their kids that they let them run them ragged and neglect their own health and mental wellness in their instinct to nurture others. They help women realize their own authority as an individual.

Both of these signs of male and female according to our humanity together teach us about characteristics that make up the whole God who is at once One and yet Three.

[Edited some wording from the original to better express the ideas I am trying to get across]

 

[HeDa]

One of the things that really surprised me two years after being received into the Catholic Church, is how the Church sees women and their importance. I as a woman, have a totally different place and dignity within the Church than in the protestant churches and secular society. There is a wonder and honour for the living human life in relationship with God and other human beings. I am appreciated and honoured because I can cooperate with God in giving life to others, not only biologically but also to help people around me become the persons God created them to be.

In secular society, women are always being exploited by someone else - divorce, abortion, contraceptives and in the end being a “slave”.

I have started to read “Mulieris Dignitatem” about women´s dignity and vocation by pope John Paul II now saint. The document is about 60 pages long and I can highly recommend it.

 

[simpleas]

Yes God is spirit, neither male nor female, yet we have to think about God in masculine terms mostly.

 

[simpleas]

The church didn’t always see woman and their importance, but has progressed along side a lot of social changes I believe.
Everybody should be appreciated and honoured in the church as children of God.
I am glad you have found your home in the church.

This thread seems to be sliding into a romantic notion of our relationship with God.