Why Can't Women Become Priests?

[jmcrae]

However, Jesus was a Jew - so why not limit the priesthood to circumcised Jewish males born in Galilee ?​

How far does one press the argument from the example of Christ ? This is one element in the argument against ordiaining women I’ve never found convincing.

Christ never ordained any women, although He departed from Jewish tradition in many other ways, regarding both women and the priesthood, separately. (He gave women other non-traditional leadership roles, and He ordained men as priests who were not of the tribe of Levi.) It would not have been all that big of a leap for Him to have ordained women (and He had plenty of opportunities), yet He did not.

And can’t it be argued that because the Consecration is of Christ’s Body, it is unimportant whether the person saying the word of Consecration is male, female, transsexual, or whatever?

Two words: sign value. The male human being is the closest thing we have to an icon of Christ. The priest in his role in persona Christi becomes an icon of Christ, and speaks Christ’s words, as if he himself were Christ - and indeed, it is Christ who is speaking the words, using the priest as His willing instrument.

If the sign-value of the human consecrator as male is the issue, it might be argued that sinfulness is a greater objection to ordination than not being male - for all males are sinners, along with all women. (That the soul is male or female, makes no sense to me.) ##

I don’t think we are going to find any women alive on the earth today who are not sinners, either, though. And the majority of priests are actually very holy men - most of them lead exemplary lives, for the most part.

 

[stillwater]

there are a lot of bible verses that promotes sexism.

(Deuteronomy 22:13-21); (Numbers 31:32-41); (Isaiah 3:16-17); (Leviticus 12:1-5); (Leviticus 15:19-24); (Leviticus 20:18)

so don’t be surprised at all why women can never ever be priests.

 

[minkymurph]

I may be introducing another topic, but in relation to the sacrifice of the Mass, was Christ male because sin entered the world through ‘one man?’ Therefore, the sacrifice offered was ‘one man?’ There has been various forms of theological reasoning that Adam was somehow more responsible than Eve, that his sin was greater. Is it not the case that under the Mosiac Law animals offered in sacrifice had to be male? Therefore, a female sacrifice is not the same thing?

 

[FCEGM]

there are a lot of bible verses that promotes sexism.

(Deuteronomy 22:13-21); (Numbers 31:32-41); (Isaiah 3:16-17); (Leviticus 12:1-5); (Leviticus 15:19-24); (Leviticus 20:18)

so don’t be surprised at all why women can never ever be priests.

Since you indicate in your profile that you are a Catholic, it would be worth your while to read carefully the posts here to see the actual reasons (not the supposed sexism of Scripture), why Christ’s Church can only ordain men to the priesthood.

 

[FCEGM]

I may be introducing another topic, but in relation to the sacrifice of the Mass, was Christ male because sin entered the world through ‘one man?’ Therefore, the sacrifice offered was ‘one man?’ There has been various forms of theological reasoning that Adam was somehow more responsible than Eve, that his sin was greater. Is it not the case that under the Mosiac Law animals offered in sacrifice had to be male? Therefore, a female sacrifice is not the same thing?

I think this article addresses your question, at least in part:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a49.htm

 

[FCEGM]

. . .

Two words: sign value. The male human being is the closest thing we have to an icon of Christ. The priest in his role in persona Christi becomes an icon of Christ, and speaks Christ’s words, as if he himself were Christ - and indeed, it is Christ who is speaking the words, using the priest as His willing instrument.
. . .QUOTE]

- and there is no necessity for having a priesthood comprised only of Jewish males, since the New Covenant in Christ is greater than the former Covenant as it reaches out beyond ethnicity.

 

[jmcrae]

I may be introducing another topic, but in relation to the sacrifice of the Mass, was Christ male because sin entered the world through ‘one man?’ Therefore, the sacrifice offered was ‘one man?’ There has been various forms of theological reasoning that Adam was somehow more responsible than Eve, that his sin was greater. Is it not the case that under the Mosiac Law animals offered in sacrifice had to be male? Therefore, a female sacrifice is not the same thing?

Yes, Christ died for Adam’s sin; not humanity’s sins, and not Adam and Eve’s sins, but Adam’s (one male human being’s) sin (one sin), which was the Original Sin that brought death into the world and plunged the entire human race into Hell.

 

[minkymurph]

Yes, Christ died for Adam’s sin; not humanity’s sins, and not Adam and Eve’s sins, but Adam’s (one male human being’s) sin (one sin), which was the Original Sin that brought death into the world and plunged the entire human race into Hell.
I think I’m going off the point but your answer interested me. Perhaps I should start another thread but, are you saying the sacrifice of the cross was for the original sin alone? Yes, we are forgiven for sins we commit which are not a result of original sin but through our own choice and Jesus took ‘the sins of the world’ so we are forgiven for sin we commit by choice by the same sacrifice but are you saying there is some distinction? Hope I’m making sense.

 

[minkymurph]

Yes, Christ died for Adam’s sin; not humanity’s sins, and not Adam and Eve’s sins, but Adam’s (one male human being’s) sin (one sin), which was the Original Sin that brought death into the world and plunged the entire human race into Hell.
I think I’m going off the point but your answer interested me. Perhaps I should start another thread but, are you saying the sacrifice of the cross was for the original sin alone? Yes, we are forgiven for sins we commit which are not a result of original sin but through our own choice and Jesus took ‘the sins of the world’ so we are forgiven for sin we commit by choice by the same sacrifice but are you saying there is some distinction? Hope I’m making sense.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Christ never ordained any women, although He departed from Jewish tradition in many other ways, regarding both women and the priesthood, separately. (He gave women other non-traditional leadership roles, and He ordained men as priests who were not of the tribe of Levi.) It would not have been all that big of a leap for Him to have ordained women (and He had plenty of opportunities), yet He did not.

Two words: sign value. The male human being is the closest thing we have to an icon of Christ. The priest in his role in persona Christi becomes an icon of Christ, and speaks Christ’s words, as if he himself were Christ - and indeed, it is Christ who is speaking the words, using the priest as His willing instrument.

I don’t think we are going to find any women alive on the earth today who are not sinners, either, though. And the majority of priests are actually very holy men - most of them lead exemplary lives, for the most part.

It is the issue of sign value that I don’t find convincing, though. ISTM to me that it is required to sustain too great a weight of argument to be really convincing; though this does not of itself affect the teaching; just the apologetic for it.​

If I were defending the teaching, I think I would see look at the Church’s practice & doctrine on this point as an example of election.

I wonder whether there has not been too much emphasis on the priesthood as a privilege. I don’t think many feminists would feel excluded, if they were told that the priesthood is a call to be crucified with Christ - have you met anyone who longs to be crucified her whole life long ? I haven’t .

ISTM that the priesthood is exactly that - never anything less. I don’t mean this as a crafty ploy to get rid of the nasty feminists who are being such a tiresome nuisance - I think that one cannot have God-given privileges, without at the same time being called to suffering. In a fallen world, the two go together. What I do think is wrong, is the notion of the priest as a superior being; I think this needs to be balanced by two other emphases:

• 1. the equal dignity of all other Christians as well - since all Christians are “kings and priests to God”, all are “a holy nation, a people of God’s own possession”
• 1. the mutual service of all Christians to one another in Christ - if the Popes really are our servants, let us think of them as such, & let them be such, & let us serve them too; & likewise for the clergy & us laity.
     But this notion of privilege without the Cross, of privilege as privilege & nothing more - IMHO, that is dangerous because it is a part-truth. It’s analogous to stressing the fact of Our Lord’s Godhead without also stressing the fact of His Humanity ##

 

[stillwater]

Since you indicate in your profile that you are a Catholic, it would be worth your while to read carefully the posts here to see the actual reasons (not the supposed sexism of Scripture), why Christ’s Church can only ordain men to the priesthood.

i believe it is totally relevant to the subject. christ had chosen only male priests because durin his time, there were priestesses in pagan religions and they were considered heretics.

1 timothy 2:12

“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men. She is to keep silent.”

and if you are going to read the preceeding verse:

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.”

now tell me, isn’t that sexism?

 

[FCEGM]

i believe it is totally relevant to the subject. christ had chosen only male priests because durin his time, there were priestesses in pagan religions and they were considered heretics.

1 timothy 2:12

“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men. She is to keep silent.”

and if you are going to read the preceeding verse:

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.”

now tell me, isn’t that sexism?

As I said, read through the posts here for a fuller view of why the Church is able to ordain only men. One would think that a Catholic would want to know the whole story and not rely on a few passages picked from Scripture that seem to support preconceived notions formed through ignorance.

 

[stillwater]

As I said, read through the posts here for a fuller view of why the Church is able to ordain only men. One would think that a Catholic would want to know the whole story and not rely on a few passages picked from Scripture that seem to support preconceived notions formed through ignorance.

i’ve read them and the other ones do not really answer the question at all. but it’s a verse of the scripture and infallible right? but i’m not gonna argue bout that anymore cuz for sure i will be told to start up a new thread and discuss it there.

 

[FCEGM]

i’ve read them and the other ones do not really answer the question at all. but it’s a verse of the scripture and infallible right? but i’m not gonna argue bout that anymore cuz for sure i will be told to start up a new thread and discuss it there.

If you have read them with understanding, then you should at least be able to see that there being women priestesses among the pagans is hardly the reason for the Church’s inability to ordain women.

 

[seremina]

Women cannot be Priests because all Priests are meant to physically represent Jesus. How can you physically represent Jesus unless you’re male? Even a Halloween costume won’t make it easier for a woman to be Christ. She’s still a woman underneath the costume. God didn’t decide for Mary to give birth to a Daughter; He chose to give birth to a Son.

Sure, feminists could try to circumvent this by having sex-change operations so they become men and get into the Priesthood. It won’t work, as they have changed how God created them and they aren’t submitting to God. If anything, it seems the women that want to be priests don’t have a noble reason for it and do an awful lot of sneaky business to try to get ordained!

Men who become priests are submitting to God and to serve their parishioners. This is not a position. It is a vocation. You can’t covet after a vocation. You have to be called to it by God. Women submit to God and have whatever vocation that God designed for them. The Priesthood isn’t one of those He designed for women. Even marriage is a vocation!

I hope this helps.

 

[jmcrae]

i believe it is totally relevant to the subject. christ had chosen only male priests because durin his time, there were priestesses in pagan religions and they were considered heretics.

1 timothy 2:12

“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men. She is to keep silent.”

and if you are going to read the preceeding verse:

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.”

now tell me, isn’t that sexism?

First, the Catholic Church certainly allows women to teach. There are women theologians in the Vatican, we have a really long tradition of teaching Sisters in the schools and churches, and women are certainly permitted to have authority in business and in areas other than the priesthood, even within the Church. In fact, some people complain that women are doing everything, and that the men are feeling left out - which isn’t really true, but there are certainly a lot of women in positions of authority and teaching in the Church.

Second, these verses say that Paul didn’t permit women to teach, and that Paul wanted women to keep silent. There may have been specific circumstances where that seemed totally appropriate to him, but if you read it carefully, you see that Paul is here expressing his own personal opinion, and not making a rule for the whole Church.

If he had been making a rule for the whole Church, then not only would women not be priests, we would not be doing any of the many other leadership tasks that we have been doing in the Church now for nearly two millenia - school teaching, Catechism classes, Sacramental Prep, retreat leadership, spiritual direction, etc., etc., etc.

No - the reasons for women not being priests have absolutely nothing to do with these verses, since women in fact do engage in teaching and leadership in the Church, in just about every area except the priesthood.

 

[Sandi]

The short answer is, because the Pope said so, that’s why.

 

[stillwater]

Second, these verses say that Paul didn’t permit women to teach, and that Paul wanted women to keep silent. There may have been specific circumstances where that seemed totally appropriate to him, but if you read it carefully, you see that Paul is here expressing his own personal opinion, and not making a rule for the whole Church.

the scripture is the supposed word of god. so if you say that it’s paul’s opinion then it shouldn’t have made it on the bible without the approval of the authorities.

the bible should be revise then if there are verses in there that are not applicable today. i’ve already told my point.

 

[jmcrae]

the scripture is the supposed word of god. so if you say that it’s paul’s opinion then it shouldn’t have made it on the bible without the approval of the authorities.

It’s Paul who says that it’s Paul’s opinion. It’s in the Bible for the same reason the Levitical laws are in there - so that we know where we came from, and what came before.

the bible should be revise then if there are verses in there that are not applicable today. i’ve already told my point.

The Bible is not the code of canon law, nor is it the Catechism. These are three different books with three different functions.

The Bible tells us where we came from; the Catechism tells us what we are to believe; and the code of canon law tells us how we must behave.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Scripture isn’t the “supposed” word of God, it IS the word of God. However, being fallible humans, we as individuals can misinterpret scripture. That is the reason that God gave us the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit guided us, FIRST to scripture itself (which was not available as “the Bible” to the earliest Christians until the end of the 4th century A.D. I might add) and then to authentic INTERPRETATION of the Scripture and its fellow, Sacred Tradition, THROUGH the Magesterium and, if necessary, through the use of the charism of infallibility by the Pope as exercised ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals (such as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception).

Now, the thing is that the Church does not micromanage or give infallible teaching on every single verse in every single book. Why? Because, for example, many books such as Revelation have verses which are multifaceted, expressing more than one meaning. However, through the Magesterium, we have amassed over 2000 years the knowledge of the infallible, authentic teachings of the Catholic Church.

One of those teachings is that the priests of the Church are to be male. There are MANY reasons for this, ranging from valid matter, from tradition, from the revelation TO the Church and its members THROUGH the Spirit over lo these many centuries, to finally our late beloved John Paul II’s written affirmation.

The fact is, we live in contentious times. The catchword, the ‘god’ of our times, is “equality”. Unless every single one of us can be, or do, exactly what any OTHER person can be or do, we scream “unfair” and “discrimination”!

It is ludicrous. There are schools which no longer have Honor Rolls, because such things “exalt” the honoree and make them feel ‘superior’, and no child should feel ‘superior’ to ANOTHER child. This is a prime example of the IDIOCY of ‘equality’.

The fact is, we are NOT equal in everything. . .not in being, or doing. We are equal, man and woman, black and white, rich and poor, in our SOULS in that we are all children of GOD–and that is it. We all have different gifts. . .and some of us with great gifts never use them, and some with few gifts exert themselves so much that they are, and do, more than those who don’t trouble to use their great gifts.

We all have different capacities, differing talents, differing ROLES TO PLAY. We are not robots, or cogs, or interchangeable pawns, and our roles in salvation history are UNIQUE.

Women’s roles are DIFFERENT from men’s but that does not make women better or worse; or men better or worse.

Gosh, you would think that with Jesus Himself telling us to be humble and to serve others that instead of screaming out in anger and hate our determination, not to serve God, but to serve our own egos, our own god of ‘equality’, we would be lying prostrate in sorrow begging Him to forgive us for our temerity, our divisiveness, our pride and hubris and overwhelming disobedience. . .