C
Contarini
Guest
Why? Why is Jesus’ maleness so much more important than any of His other human attributes?
Edwin
- Status
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
The idea that He didn’t smacks of Docetism. But we can trade these barbs all week. . . .
I can’t see that this is relevant.
He was Jewish Himself. Are you saying that He didn’t care what he thought? What His Blessed Mother thought? This makes no sense.
The Twelve happened to be men. There is no indication in the Gospels that this was for some theological reason. It makes perfect sense that they would be men–why on earth not?
Absolutely. And that means that picking twelve men and no women (for that particular group) was not contrary to the Truth. It does not mean that women couldn’t have been included, simply that they didn’t need to be.
The fact that I can say that should indicate to you that I’m not a feminist in any commonly accepted sense.
If X has capabilities A1, B1, and C1, and Y has capabilities A2, B2, and C2, but also D2, then Y is clearly superior to A. That seems a matter of logic to me.So?
In essence, we should defy Holy Tradition and the infallible teaching on a male-only Priesthood because it offends the sensibilities of modern man? Modernism again rears its ugly head.
This is a straw man. I’m not talking about cultural sensibilities. I’m saying that
a) I don’t believe men are superior to women, and the contemporary Catholic Church seems to agree with me; and
b) if men are ontologically capable of the highest and most glorious office in the Church (offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is after all the “source and summit of the Church’s life”) and women are not, then logically men are superior to women.
c) therefore, there is at the very least a strong presumption against the proposition that only men can be priests.
Furthermore, I’m saying that the notion of a bifurcated human nature propounded by many “conservative” Catholics today is a far more radical break with Tradition than the idea of women priests.
If you’re a hardline traditionalist who is willing to call JPII a modernist and affirm that men really are superior to women, then we probably don’t have much ground on which to have an argument. But if you aren’t willing to do that, then I don’t think you can make a coherent case for the male-only priesthood.
And yes, that means that great and wise as JPII was and B16 is, I think (with all due respect) they both fail to make a coherent case.
Edwin
K
kleary
Guest
This is not the issue. the issue is that only a male person can be a male person plain and simple biology.
Ken
C
Contarini
Guest
We’re going round in circles. You still haven’t explained why being a male person is important.
Only a Jewish person can be a Jewish person. So should only Jewish people be priests, since Jesus was a Jew? Since Jesus was almost certainly dark-haired (in spite of the pictures and movies to the contrary), should blond-haired men be excluded? Perhaps every aspiring seminarian should be made to take a course in carpentery–because, after all, only a carpenter can be a carpenter. It’s simple sociology.
You can’t evade the question of why maleness is uniquely significant.
Edwin
A
adrift
Guest
Consider the Old Testement when the priesthood for the Jews was established. If God wanted priestess, that would have been the time to establish them. It would have been the cultural thing to do but He didn’t. Jesus’ maleness is not more important(that is your conclusion) but it is the will of God.
C
Contarini
Guest
Pagan priestesses obviously were not appropriate models! They were usually linked to sexual fertility religions.
And that’s what it really boils down to–the will of Allah. So much fo the Pope’s noble words about reason!
Edwin
K
kleary
Guest
God created mankind to be male and female persons.
Jesus Christ is a Divine Person with a human nature that is MASCULINE.
A male person cannot give birth, likewise a female person cannot produce sperm.
If the priest is Alter Christus at Holy Mass then only a male person can offer Holy Mass and be “another christ”. Last I read Christ is a man so therefore the priest must be a man since He “becomes” Jesus so to say. A woman CANNOT “become Jesus” in the Mass because she is female and Jesus is male. You cannot put a square peg into a round hole.
Again, the proponents of female ordination KNOW THIS. They know that the doctrine concerning the Mass must also change in order to accomodate female priests. If the Mass is not what Trent described it as then there is no problem with women priests at all. Trent must be anathematized in order to have female priests.
The “Liturgy” in the Episcopal Church is not considered a Sacrifice that is why they had no problem for the most part on “ordaining” women to their “priesthood” that is invalid anyway.
Ken
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
Maleness is uniquely significant because the priest is the Groom while The Church is the Bride.
(You have to understand that the priest is acting in the persona of Christ. If you don’t accept this, then you may as well allow females priests. This is why a lot of Protestant churches allow female priests.)
N
NotWorthy
Guest
We know that Jesus didn’t assign any women to be Apostles. We also see numerous priests and bishops being ordained all through the rest of the New Testament - none of which were women. This speaks volumes. If Jesus left a mandate for anyone to become priests, then the Apostles would have done so.
L
LilyM
Guest
Priests and male prostitutes were also linked to fertility cults - they weren’t exclusive to women.
Jesus’ maleness is significant for the same reason that Saturdays and the land of Israel were significant for the Jews, and that bread and wine are significant for us. God has chosen them to be so. End of story.
There is absoutely no other way to explain WHY Mary Jesus’ mother and Mary Magdalene were not made priests otherwise. They were more devoted to Christ and equally or more capable of the task than the Apostles.
Remember that Paul preached to the pagans, who would not at all have looked askance at the idea of priestesses, so there was no cultural reason to exclude them either.
So why were the two Marys, the two most important and capable women among Jesus’ followers, NOT charged to forgive sins, baptise or confect the Eucharist??? If not in Israel during Jesus’ time then certainly afterwards, since according to tradition they both moved out of the Holy Land?
So why? If not that there was a deeper significance to Jesus’ choosing males to represent him? Just as there was a deeper significance to the land of Israel and the Holy Day of Saturday being chosen for the Jews.
Jesus’ maleness is significant for the same reason that Saturdays and the land of Israel were significant for the Jews, and that bread and wine are significant for us. God has chosen them to be so. End of story.
There is absoutely no other way to explain WHY Mary Jesus’ mother and Mary Magdalene were not made priests otherwise. They were more devoted to Christ and equally or more capable of the task than the Apostles.
Remember that Paul preached to the pagans, who would not at all have looked askance at the idea of priestesses, so there was no cultural reason to exclude them either.
So why were the two Marys, the two most important and capable women among Jesus’ followers, NOT charged to forgive sins, baptise or confect the Eucharist??? If not in Israel during Jesus’ time then certainly afterwards, since according to tradition they both moved out of the Holy Land?
So why? If not that there was a deeper significance to Jesus’ choosing males to represent him? Just as there was a deeper significance to the land of Israel and the Holy Day of Saturday being chosen for the Jews.
K
kleary
Guest
The person does not accept the priest as persona christi due to his Episcopalian beliefs. In the Episcopal Church the Liturgy is not the priest offering Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity under the appearance of bread and wine to the Triune God for the sins of the living and dead.
Ken
L
lrs
Guest
Aren’t we taught as Catholics that we are all “made in the image and likeness of Christ” Male and Female, made in the image and likeness of Christ. Meaning Christ is neither Female or Male, but is the I AM.
On the one hand: Did God incarnate as a Man because at that time in History a women would have been dismissed, stoned, considered illegitiment on an immediate basis?It truly has nothing to do with only a Man can do the job. God perfectly designed each and everyone of us, we have gifts and annointings. Why can’t we just appreciate this, accept this. Again, it has nothing to do with capabilites, comparisons, men are better than women. It all has to do with using who and what we are for a Divine Purpose. Sure, women could consecrate the Eucharist. It must not be a question of this. We need to shift our focus. Honor Women!
We must remember that Mother Mary, completely full of Grace, plays her own specific and Holy role.
Can anyone here name the 12 Disciples?
I know I am bouncing, but many points made.
Eternal Peace,
Lis
On the one hand: Did God incarnate as a Man because at that time in History a women would have been dismissed, stoned, considered illegitiment on an immediate basis?It truly has nothing to do with only a Man can do the job. God perfectly designed each and everyone of us, we have gifts and annointings. Why can’t we just appreciate this, accept this. Again, it has nothing to do with capabilites, comparisons, men are better than women. It all has to do with using who and what we are for a Divine Purpose. Sure, women could consecrate the Eucharist. It must not be a question of this. We need to shift our focus. Honor Women!
We must remember that Mother Mary, completely full of Grace, plays her own specific and Holy role.
Can anyone here name the 12 Disciples?
I know I am bouncing, but many points made.
Eternal Peace,
Lis
C
Contarini
Guest
I do believe that the priest is acting in persona Christi, although I do not believe that the difference between the priest and other believers is ontological. I believe that in emergency circumstances any believer could act in persona Christi in the same way. (Anglo-Catholics would disagree with me, of course–they hold firmly to the Catholic understanding of the priesthood.)
I don’t like the docetic undertones of “appearance of bread and wine.” I believe that both the Body and the Bread are real. I would prefer to say that we offer bread and wine to God, who then transforms them into the body and blood of Christ and unites our sacrifice of thanksgiving with Christ’s one propitiatory sacrifice. But I don’t strenuously object to your way of putting it.
The only difference that’s relevant for this debate, it seems to me, is that I don’t believe that the ministerial priesthood is something ontologically different from the universal priesthood of the baptized. I believe that God calls certain people to the ministerial priesthood and activates (so to speak) the particularly priestly calling that is latent in any baptized believer. I therefore don’t accept the idea that there can be such a thing as an invalid ordination or an invalid Eucharist.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Human nature is not differentiated into masculine and feminine. There is only one human nature. This is traditional Christian thought. You are the modernist here.
But you still haven’t answered the question–why is maleness significant? Unless you seriously want to defend the proposition that there are two kinds of human nature–masculine and feminine. You might want to think seriously before trying to defend such a claim, since it’s a radical break with Christian tradition.
The traditional view is that male human beings more fully instantiate the one human nature, not that they have a separate nature.
Actually I think it’s the other way round. The only way you can make any case for a male-only priesthood (as a matter of validity, not just a matter of propriety or due order) is to maintain the Catholic view of the priesthood. But I can’t see that the Catholic view implies the male priesthood, because it doesn’t explain why maleness is so all-fired important when all Jesus’ other human attributes are irrelevant.
You’re wrong. You might try attending one of our liturgies or at least reading the text, easily available on the Web. All our liturgies speak of sacrifice, although admittedly it’s a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.
Edwin
L
lrs
Guest
Just putting this question out there. What do people think on this thread:
Are Priests, in God’s eyes, equal to lay people. Or do you think Priests are considered More Holy in God’s eyes. Some may say by Ordination they are married to the Church, therefore are considered more Holy, Special, Faithful, Loyal in God’s Eyes.
I say NO, not one of us are created “more special” than another. The beggar is equal to the King.
Peace, Lisa
Are Priests, in God’s eyes, equal to lay people. Or do you think Priests are considered More Holy in God’s eyes. Some may say by Ordination they are married to the Church, therefore are considered more Holy, Special, Faithful, Loyal in God’s Eyes.
I say NO, not one of us are created “more special” than another. The beggar is equal to the King.
Peace, Lisa
L
LittleDeb
Guest
I am really trying to understand where you are coming from here. I agree that exchanging barbs isn’t working. So if the universal priesthood and and the ministrial priesthood are basically the same, how then is that sacrifice of the Mass any different than any other sacrificial event?
I used to hold the belief that an all-male priesthood was making it look like men were superior. It took a lot to to undo that belief for me. It came down for me to the very real differences between men and women. The ontological differences. I didn’t use that term though. I used the term authentic. Your terms of invalid and valid reminded me of the use of that term. Only women can be authentic mothers. Only men can be authentic fathers.
My understanding of the Mass deepened as my understanding of the authentic roles of men and women became clearer. There is an audio by John Martignoni that I would recommend, called Marriage and the Eucharist, but I am not sure as an Episcopalian it would mean the same thing to you. I admit, I don’t have a good working knowledge of how Espiscopalians view their Communion. I have some idea, but not enough to have a real discussion in this context.
The wording of the Latin Vulgate was translated to Jesus saying, “It is consummated” before dying on the cross. That spoke volumes to me about the nature of Jesus and the role of the priesthood.
M
Montalban
Guest
and the Orthodox Church
Women can’t be priests like men can’t become mothers. Different roles
All of a sudden?
:tiphat:
M
Mommyof02green
Guest
I knew that… just a poor choice of words on my part.
F
FCEGM
Guest
St. Bernard commenting on the Rule of St. Benedict taught that ordinary humility required being obedient and deferent to one’s superior and equal to one’s peers. In the Church the priestly office places its members in a qualitatively superior position to the laity with superior powers and authority over the laity, meant for a greater service towards them, thus having a superior dignity. To recognize that the clerical state of ordination gives the recipient of it a greater dignity which is to be publicly recognized does not mean either clericalism or a diminution of the mission to serve. This mission to serve is ordered primarily to offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the other Sacraments, especially the forgiving of sins, as well as teaching the truth faith and guiding the faithful in attaining virtue and sanctify of life. It is primarily the laity’s privilege to sanctify all human life and bring faith and virtue into it, indeed into the whole world.
I’m reminded of of the difficulty many Protestants have in appreciating not only the hierarchy of the Church, but also the hierarchy within the Communion of Saints - more specifically their seeing the Most Blessed Virgin Mary as just one of their equals in Christ. Some, even Catholics now, can’t seem to fathom that, yes, there are those who have a higher calling in this life - and the next. Again, that’s not to say that an extremely high degree of holiness in conformation to Christ isn’t available to the humblest peasant, *a la *St. Juan Diego who was never a priest, yet enjoyed the company of the Virgin.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
If you really really really truly truly believe all people are equal in the eyes of God, then try a couple of simple exercises.
- Next time you drive past a hospital, go on in and perform some brain surgery.
- Next time you fly on an airliner, announce that YOU will fly the plane instead of the airline pilot, because you are equal.
- Status