Why don't priests have to be Jewish carpenters?

[mcliffor]

Priest have to be male, because it is said that being male was one of Christ’s essential properties, but not brown haired, Jewish or a carpenters, since these are Christ’s accidental properties.

First of all, how does one distinguish between accidental and essential properties when Christ was only one man? One could argue that every property he had was necessarily essential since without other “Christs” it is impossible to tell what made Christ who he was and what attributes weren’t a part of his essence. It could be argued, for example, that being human was an essential property of Christ while being male was not, just as it could be argued that his being conveived as a Jewish male with brown hair, destined to be brought up in an ethnically Jewish household were also essential properties of Christ that a priest ought to have if he is going to act in persona Christi.

Although I’ll admit being male is a much weightier property than hair color or ethnicity, such things are still determined at conception when he became incarnate, so that Christ was dark haired from the moment he was male and many properties besides his sex were determined from the moment he was conceived. Why is sex in a different category than any of these other properties? Why is one necessarily essential to Christ nature and another only accidental, and how do you tell the difference?

Is it solely a matter of tradition, or could a Catholic with no knowledge of tradition reach the same conlusion that priests have to be male but don’t have to be semitic?

 

[LilyM]

Being male isn’t a ‘weightier’ factor - it’s a FUNDAMENTAL factor.

Jesus said ‘Our Father’, not ‘Our brown-haired Jewish carpenter father’, so the Father’s gender MATTERS, since Jesus could have said ‘parent’ instead if he’d wanted to be inclusive about God the Father’s gender. And the other characteristics don’t, since they’re not even mentioned!

Similarly, throughout the New Testament Jesus calls himself, and Paul and John call Him, the bridegroom as the Church is the bride. Neither He nor the Church is never referred to as simply ‘spouse’, nor is He referred to as the ‘brown haired Jewish carpenter bridegroom’. For one thing we don’t even know that he was brown-haired nor a carpenter.

Put it simply, it’s that aspect of being bridegroom that was important enough to be spoken of, and it’s that aspect that makes the gender of priests critical (not just weighty) when they act in Christ’s place. There simply is no such thing as a female bridegroom, never has been, never will be, never can be.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Utimately, and most assuredly, it is the judgement of Holy Mother the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who gurantees that the masculine gender is essential to the priesthood while ethnicity, hair colour, facial features etc were not.

But we can use reason to appreciate the truth of the Church’s teachings. Some suggestions:

• Scripture, in its very first book, affirms that God intended to create man male and female, and that this was a good. No mention of hair colour, ethnicity or other accidential characteristics there. I think this tells us that the distiction of gender is an important and fundamental distinction to humanity since it is willed by God from the moment of creation and affirmed by God as very good. Other “distictions” such as colour does not belong to this category.
• My experience also suggests that human beings relate to human beings based on this fundamental distiction of male and female. I relate to a male person and a female person differently, but not between males with different hair colour, or different ethinicities.
• Males and females from different ethnic backgrounds and hair colour can marry and have children naturally. Obviously, this can’t be true of people from the same gender, no matter what some cranky activists try to tell us. Thus, ethnicity etc cannot be on the same level of difference as gender.
• Hair colour can change, artificially and naturally with age. Ethnicity becomes confused when two persons from different ethnic backgrounds marry and have children. Genders don’t, not even with a sex change operation which only changes the appearance but not the biological reality. This, I think, is what ultimately differentiates an accident from an incident in Thomistic philosophy.

Of course, reason illuminates faith, but ultimately our faith is based on God’s revelation, not on how convincing our arguments are.

 

[dranzal]

Jesus called 12 MEN. He did not call 12 brown haired carpenters. He did not call 12 fishermen. He did not call 12 rabbis (though the higher up Jews at the time might have liked that).

He called 12 simple sinful MEN. Fishermen, a tax collector, etc.

 

[marybee]

Being male isn’t a ‘weightier’ factor - it’s a FUNDAMENTAL factor.

**Jesus said ‘Our Father’, not ‘Our brown-haired Jewish carpenter father’, so the Father’s gender **MATTERS, since Jesus could have said ‘parent’ instead if he’d wanted to be inclusive about God the Father’s gender. And the other characteristics don’t, since they’re not even mentioned!

Similarly, throughout the New Testament Jesus calls himself, and Paul and John call Him, the bridegroom as the Church is the bride. Neither He nor the Church is never referred to as simply ‘spouse’, nor is He referred to as the ‘brown haired Jewish carpenter bridegroom’. For one thing we don’t even know that he was brown-haired nor a carpenter.

Put it simply, it’s that aspect of being bridegroom that was important enough to be spoken of, and it’s that aspect that makes the gender of priests critical (not just weighty) when they act in Christ’s place. There simply is no such thing as a female bridegroom, never has been, never will be, never can be.

Funny way to put it lily as usual!

 

[mcliffor]

Jesus called 12 MEN. He did not call 12 brown haired carpenters. He did not call 12 fishermen. He did not call 12 rabbis (though the higher up Jews at the time might have liked that).

He called 12 simple sinful MEN. Fishermen, a tax collector, etc.

All of these men happened to be of semitic ancestry, they probably had the same hair color, were a certain height, etc. Where does Christ say that these things too are not prerquisites for his priesthood?

The argument seems to be that God makes a distinction between being male and female and that Christ’s gender is reffered to in the gospels. But God (Christ) also made a distinction between Jews and non-Jews and his ethnicity (circumcisioin, pilgrimages, son of David) is just as referrenced and is just as essential to his ministry. Christ was not born a Roman or a Greek, but a Jew and this was fundamental to his ministry, so why isn’t being of semitic ancestry like Christ and his apostles also a prerequisite?

In the end, how do you determine that being MALE is a prerequisite for the priesthood and not any other number of traits Jesus and his apostle shared in common? I believe the Church, but saying “because God’s Church says so,” is not going to convince a feminist or Anglican that being male was fundamental to Christ’s ministry and being born in Israel was only accidental.

 

[Bennie_P]

All of these men happened to be of semitic ancestry, they probably had the same hair color, were a certain height, etc. Where does Christ say that these things too are not prerquisites for his priesthood?

The argument seems to be that God makes a distinction between being male and female and that Christ’s gender is reffered to in the gospels. But God (Christ) also made a distinction between Jews and non-Jews and his ethnicity (circumcisioin, pilgrimages, son of David) is just as referrenced and is just as essential to his ministry. Christ was not born a Roman or a Greek, but a Jew and this was fundamental to his ministry, so why isn’t being of semitic ancestry like Christ and his apostles also a prerequisite?

In the end, how do you determine that being MALE is a prerequisite for the priesthood and not any other number of traits Jesus and his apostle shared in common? I believe the Church, but saying “because God’s Church says so,” is not going to convince a feminist or Anglican that being male was fundamental to Christ’s ministry and being born in Israel was only accidental.

He called Paul - who was a Roman citizen.

It is not “US” that does the convincing,
John 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him. And I will raise him up in the last day.

If you think you can convert anyone with logic or worldly wisdom you are sure to fail.

 

[adrift]

Where does Christ say that these things too are not prerquisites for his priesthood?

The question should be where does Jesus say that they are important for His priesthood?

The argument seems to be that God makes a distinction between being male and female and that Christ’s gender is reffered to in the gospels. But God (Christ) also made a distinction between Jews and non-Jews and his ethnicity (circumcisioin, pilgrimages, son of David) is just as referrenced and is just as essential to his ministry. Christ was not born a Roman or a Greek, but a Jew and this was fundamental to his ministry, so why isn’t being of semitic ancestry like Christ and his apostles also a prerequisite?

In the end, how do you determine that being MALE is a prerequisite for the priesthood and not any other number of traits Jesus and his apostle shared in common? I believe the Church, but saying “because God’s Church says so,” is not going to convince a feminist or Anglican that being male was fundamental to Christ’s ministry and being born in Israel was only accidental.

This was excellently already answered

Similarly, throughout the New Testament Jesus calls himself, and Paul and John call Him, the bridegroom as the Church is the bride. Neither He nor the Church is never referred to as simply ‘spouse’, nor is He referred to as the ‘brown haired Jewish carpenter bridegroom’. For one thing we don’t even know that he was brown-haired nor a carpenter.

Put it simply, it’s that aspect of being bridegroom that was important enough to be spoken of, and it’s that aspect that makes the gender of priests critical (not just weighty) when they act in Christ’s place. There simply is no such thing as a female bridegroom, never has been, never will be, never can be.

 

[water]

Priest have to be male, because it is said that being male was one of Christ’s essential properties, but not brown haired, Jewish or a carpenters, since these are Christ’s accidental properties.

One quick thing you can think about is that Jesus didn’t take his carpentry job with Him during His Ministry.

 

[Polaris]

He called Paul - who was a Roman citizen.

Not a good example, Paul bought his citizenship, he is still a Jew in every sense of the word. Plus Jesus did not call Paul himself during his life, it was after his death. He converted because he had a “vision”.

 

[Brendan]

All of these men happened to be of semitic ancestry, they probably had the same hair color, were a certain height, etc. Where does Christ say that these things too are not prerquisites for his priesthood?.

So if Christ shaved his head, he would have ceased to be Christ?

Is that what you are saying, that the hair color (or even hair) was essential to the person of Christ.

In addition, we know that the Apostles ordained Greek men, such as Timothy, to the priesthood. So clearly Semitic nationality is accidental.

When did they ordain women?

 

[LilyM]

Not a good example, Paul bought his citizenship, he is still a Jew in every sense of the word. Plus Jesus did not call Paul himself during his life, it was after his death. He converted because he had a “vision”.

Does it actually SAY that the Apostles were all Jews though? Look up the derivation of the name Philip, for example - Greek through and through. Shocking as it may sound, we DON’T know that Philip was Jewish.

 

[BlestOne]

A priest that used to be at my parish was a Jewish lawyer… Is that close enough???

 

[vern_humphrey]

Jesus learned Joseph’s trade as a carpenter – but He did not choose carpenters as His apostles. The Apostles, who were the first bishops, were fishermen, tax collectors, tent makers and so on.

They covered a wide spectrum of trades. But they were all men

 

[estesbob]

Priest have to be male, because it is said that being male was one of Christ’s essential properties, but not brown haired, Jewish or a carpenters, since these are Christ’s accidental properties.

First of all, how does one distinguish between accidental and essential properties when Christ was only one man? One could argue that every property he had was necessarily essential since without other “Christs” it is impossible to tell what made Christ who he was and what attributes weren’t a part of his essence. It could be argued, for example, that being human was an essential property of Christ while being male was not, just as it could be argued that his being conveived as a Jewish male with brown hair, destined to be brought up in an ethnically Jewish household were also essential properties of Christ that a priest ought to have if he is going to act in persona Christi.

Although I’ll admit being male is a much weightier property than hair color or ethnicity, such things are still determined at conception when he became incarnate, so that Christ was dark haired from the moment he was male and many properties besides his sex were determined from the moment he was conceived. Why is sex in a different category than any of these other properties? Why is one necessarily essential to Christ nature and another only accidental, and how do you tell the difference?

Is it solely a matter of tradition, or could a Catholic with no knowledge of tradition reach the same conlusion that priests have to be male but don’t have to be semitic?

I would not be so quick to dismiss tradition. The male only Priesthood has been in effect for 2,000 years. If one truly beleives the Church is guided by the Spirit it would be ludicrous to beleive that the Spirit would allow an inocrrect tradition to exist for 2,000 years.

The drive for ordaining women is driven , like so any things, by presentism. That is the idea that we are the wisest , most enlightened people that ever lived. Therefore we just know that the only reason women are not allowed to be ordained is becuase of narrow minded bigoted attitude of all those who went before us. The same arguments used to promote ordination of women are th the are the ones that are used to promote homosexual behavior as being Ok, approving abortion, contraception, et al. Once we assert that we are more enlightned all those who went before were wrong anyhting goes and moral relatavism takes hold.

Take a look at the denominations that have allowed ordination of women and see how it ALWAYS had led to a decline in the moral expectations a Church has for it members. The Episcopal Church quicky went from ordaining women to haveing Homosexual Bishops and Muslim Priests.

The burden of proof on the correctness of ordaining women is on those who support it… They have to show why we should overturn 2,000 years of teachngs and traditions. The answer that it has always been wrong to not ordain them can not be correct as that implies that the Holy Spirt is a bigot, And if we are to accept the fact that the Church was wrong about not ordaining women how do we know they are not lying to us about the Ressurection and the real Presence and and all other doctoirnes and traditons that have been central to the Church for the last 2,000 yeras?

 

[vern_humphrey]

The bottom line is, John Paul the Great settled the issue, telling us that the Church has no power to ordain women and that is to be held definitively by all the faithful.

End of discussion.

 

[dranzal]

Not sure if I should open this can of worms…but…

we all do share common ancestry. What we don’t all have is a Y chromosome. It is not something we can change like hair color, worldview, career path, etc.

Plus, if they all had to be Jewish carpenters, we’d have even fewer priests.

 

[mcliffor]

I don’t think my question has been answered. There are several arguments in favor of a male priesthood. I’m reffering specifically to the persona Christi argument. I’m asking why the Church teaches that one has to be male to act in in persona christi but not anything else. Christ’s goodness was an essential character of Christ, but a sinful priest can still act in persona Christi. Therefore, why couldn’t a woman act in persona Christi?

Basically, why is maleness essential to being Christ and goodness, jewishness or any other property not?

Here is the argument I always have:

Them: “Why won’t the Church ordain women?”
Me: “Tradition”
Them: “I don’t believe in tradition because it can be corrupted and the Church Fathers were chauvinist.”
Me: “All of Christs apostles were men. In ordaining men only, he sat this requirement for the priesthood.”
Them: “The same logic would mean that since there were no Irish or German apostles, the Church doesn’t have the authority to ordain Irish or German priests.”
Me: “Maleness is an essential character defining Christ, therefore, a person cannot act in persona Christi if they are not male, which is why Christ chose male priest only.”
Them: “But what makes an essential property of Christ? It is an essential property of salesmen that they sell things. That is their definition. Haircolor is an accidental property of a salesman since it is irrelevant to his being a saleman. However, Christ was one person. He never states explicitly that it is essential that all priests be male. To define Christ is to define every attribute of the God-man since there can only be one Christ.”
Me: “But certain properties are essential and others are accidental.”
Them: “So the Church claims that it doesn’t have the authority to ordain women priests, but does have the authority to determine which of Christ’s properties are accidental and which are essential with no other “Christs” to compare him to, and only one definition of Christ which includes every detail set forth in the gospels? Was it accidental that Christ was born a man, and not a woman or essential? Was the crucifixion essential? If so, it would mean it was essential that Christ be born in Israel so he had the San hedrin to condemn him.”
Me: “But Christ is constantly making reference to his maleness, as the bridegroom of the Church, making it important.”
Them: “Likewise, he is constantly affirming his Jewishness by taking part in Jewish rituals (cricumcision, passover etc.) which makes that an important trait of Christ.”

 

[mcliffor]

The bottom line is, John Paul the Great settled the issue, telling us that the Church has no power to ordain women and that is to be held definitively by all the faithful.

End of discussion.

I’m not challenging the authority of the Magisterium. I’m trying to understand why the Magisterium says the male priesthood is rational and not just a matter of faith.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t think my question has been answered. There are several arguments in favor of a male priesthood. I’m reffering specifically to the persona Christi argument. I’m asking why the Church teaches that one has to be male to act in in persona christi but not anything else. Christ’s goodness was an essential character of Christ, but a sinful priest can still act in persona Christi. Therefore, why couldn’t a woman act in persona Christi?

Basically, why is maleness essential to being Christ and goodness, jewishness or any other property not?

Here is the argument I always have:

Them: “Likewise, he is constantly affirming his Jewishness by taking part in Jewish rituals (cricumcision, passover etc.) which makes that an important trait of Christ.”

How is Christ affirming his Jewishness?

a) he calls the Eucharist the NEW Covenant (ie a different thing from the old Covenant with Abraham and Moses), and breaks the old Jewish laws in any number of ways

b) he tells his followers explicitly that baptism of water and spirit is essential while pointedly neglects to tell them circumcision is important in any way …

c) he moreover tells his followers NOT to pride themselves on descent from Abraham (Jewishness) - that God can raise children for Abraham from the rocks and stones!

d) he is priest, and High priest too, but NOT from the line of Aaron who had ALWAYS been the priests of Israel up to that point.

Christ knew how to convey to the Apostles what was important teaching and what was not. And they likewise to their followers. It was not a matter of chauvinism.

Remember that the formerly pagan (especially Greek and Roman) followers of the Apostles very quickly outnumbered the Jewish Christians (hence the dispute in Acts about whether circumcision was required). And these Gentiles replaced the Apostles as they died out - I don’t think any of Peter’s successors as Pope were Jewish, for example.

THEY (the Gentile successors) were well familiar with the pagan priestesses common to Greek, Roman and other non-Jewish religions. They had worshipped under those very priestesses! THEY at least would have had no natural chauvinism against female ordination.

So the most natural thing would have been, in the generations succeeding the Apostles, to see priestesses coming to the fore. Yet there is a conspicuous absence of such. Clearly they were well taught by the Apostles about the significance of a male-only priesthood.