M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
Hebrews 7 (read in its entirety) always struck me as the destruction or end of the priesthood. What am I missing?
Last edited:
- Status
S
simpleas
Guest
I’m not sure what you are asking?
S
simpleas
Guest
Ok so it’s just down to the visual aspect.
S
simpleas
Guest
I was thinking on the significance of Jesus appearing to Mary first and telling her to go and find the others and tell them he was ascending to the father etc, and I came across this, I haven’t found any Catholic reference as yet.
Why did Jesus choose to reveal Himself to Mary Magdalene after His resurrection? Why did He send her forth to the brethren as the first witness of His Good News? What does all this mean for women today?
We begin to answer these questions by noting how Je-sus again broke with tradition. In first-century Israel, women were not allowed to testify in a court of law: They were considered unreliable witnesses. Yet when Jesus was raised from the dead, and He wanted this fact proclaimed to the world, He first commissioned one of His women followers to spread the news.
Through the redemption of Christ, the woman got her voice back. Mary Magdalene was appointed to go and tell. She was commissioned to preach. Jesus did not limit her, restrict her or tell her to stay out of the pulpit. Instead, He ordained her to be a carrier of His glorious Gospel.
This was dramatically illustrated on Easter morning, when Mary Magdalene was sent by Jesus to announce His Good News. Jesus did not pick Mary to be the first evangelist simply because she woke up earlier than the others that day. He was making it clear that, in Christ, there is “neither male nor female” (Galatians 3:28). Under the New Covenant, through the power of the Holy Spirit, both men and women can serve as ministers of His grace. And when He was raised from the dead, He commissioned His faithful disciple Mary Magdalene to blaze that trail for all women to follow.
www.crosswalk.com
Why did Jesus choose to reveal Himself to Mary Magdalene after His resurrection? Why did He send her forth to the brethren as the first witness of His Good News? What does all this mean for women today?
We begin to answer these questions by noting how Je-sus again broke with tradition. In first-century Israel, women were not allowed to testify in a court of law: They were considered unreliable witnesses. Yet when Jesus was raised from the dead, and He wanted this fact proclaimed to the world, He first commissioned one of His women followers to spread the news.
Through the redemption of Christ, the woman got her voice back. Mary Magdalene was appointed to go and tell. She was commissioned to preach. Jesus did not limit her, restrict her or tell her to stay out of the pulpit. Instead, He ordained her to be a carrier of His glorious Gospel.
This was dramatically illustrated on Easter morning, when Mary Magdalene was sent by Jesus to announce His Good News. Jesus did not pick Mary to be the first evangelist simply because she woke up earlier than the others that day. He was making it clear that, in Christ, there is “neither male nor female” (Galatians 3:28). Under the New Covenant, through the power of the Holy Spirit, both men and women can serve as ministers of His grace. And when He was raised from the dead, He commissioned His faithful disciple Mary Magdalene to blaze that trail for all women to follow.
Why Was Mary Magdalene the First Witness of the Resurrection?
Why did Jesus choose to reveal Himself to Mary Magdalene after His resurrection? Why did He send her forth to the brethren as the first witness of His Good News? What does all this mean for women today?
www.crosswalk.com
E
Elizabeth3
Guest
Well not “just” the visual aspect. There are other theological reasons that might explain the “why” we have a male priesthood. But the main and foundational reason, is that the Church looking at Christ’s words and actions with the Twelve (Peter being given the keys, the power of binding and loosing, the Last Supper etc) finds that She has no authority to do other than what Christ indicated He wanted for the priesthood.
E
Elizabeth3
Guest
It could just mean that women are always the first ones to know there is new life to announce so it was fitting that it was a woman who announced the resurrection. I think it’s a stretch to say that Christ “ordained her.” We’re all commissioned to preach and none of us are restricted from it. Mary Magdalene was given the privilege and commission of every baptized person, which is to tell the Good News.
G
guanophore
Guest
I want to know why you think she did not deserve the privilege of being ordained?
Mary is called the “apostle to the apostles” and I think she is the model of how Jesus intends for women to serve Him in the Kingdom. It is a different role than Holy Orders, but no less important.
P
phil19034
Guest
No. It’s the end of the Levitical Priesthood and the creation of a new priesthood based on the old priesthood of Melchizedekphil19034:
Hebrews 7 (read in its entirety) always struck me as the destruction or end of the priesthood. What am I missing?
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
I see. So when I read this scripture it seems to me that it is saying that when Jesus came he fulfilled prophecy by becoming a priest of the Melchizedek and this was the end of the Levitical Priesthood. Do I have that right?
My confusion comes with the discussion of priests dying and needing to be replaced (Levitical Priesthood) vs. Jesus fulfilling prophecy and becoming an everlasting priest and the only one needed (Hebrews 7:25). If He is the everlasting priest and if He makes intercession for us, where do all the other Catholic Priests come into play?
My confusion comes with the discussion of priests dying and needing to be replaced (Levitical Priesthood) vs. Jesus fulfilling prophecy and becoming an everlasting priest and the only one needed (Hebrews 7:25). If He is the everlasting priest and if He makes intercession for us, where do all the other Catholic Priests come into play?
P
phil19034
Guest
Biblical support for the priesthood is shown in a number of places, here are just a few:
Acts 20:28
Lk 22:19
Jn 20:22
Acts 6:6
Acts 13:3
Acts: 14:22
1 Tim 4:14
2 Tim 1:6
Tit 1:5
The issue though, is that for a lot of these passages to make more sense, one much be familiar with the Jewish priesthood (both the Order of Melchizedek and the Levitical Priesthood).
Also, we have to keep in mind that the Catholic Church believes in BOTH the sacrificial priesthood and the priesthood of all believers. However, that the ministerial priesthood does have unique responsibilities vs the lay priesthood.
Additionally, there are other places in the Bible, and this short article here on Catholic Answers does a good job explaining and listing other verses too: Why We Have a Ministerial Priesthood | Catholic Answers
God Bless.
Last edited:
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
Thank you!
S
simpleas
Guest
There are many occasions where Jesus brought woman ‘into the fold’ and did not reject them as was the norm in the Jewish faith. Looking only at the words and actions of Jesus toward the male followers and giving these occasions more study would convince us that Jesus never ever meant for women to become ministers.
S
simpleas
Guest
I didn’t say she did not deserve to be ordained, Mary is the mother of Jesus, that role can never be imitated by any human.
G
guanophore
Guest
What are you saying, that Priests are “imitating” Christ when they act in Persona Cristi?
E
Elizabeth3
Guest
Of course women are welcome into the fold. The male priesthood isn’t a rejection of women. It is a representation of Christ as our High Priest. If I’m not mistaken, the Church did extensively study the possibility of finding evidence for women priests and have not found it in either Scripture or Tradition.
A
alphawoman
Guest
Thank you for a lovely, well reasoned reply. My response is partly in reply to your points, and partly a further discussion based on my thoughts.
Again, per CCC 355, I must disagree with the assertion that a woman would not properly represent the sacramental content associated with administering Communion.
First, the species of Communion is Christ Himself, in which we receive Christ in His totality. The priest is not presenting himself as Christ, but is adopting the formula instituted by Christ to properly trans substantiate the bread and wine. Priests, by virtue of holy orders, are able to execute the transsubstantiation, but they remain distinct from the perfect and eternal Christ in the Eucharist. Christ is the sacrament par excellence.
Second, in the sacrament of Holy Orders, priests are inducted into an order of priesthood modeled on Christ. What do we know about Christ? We are taught that he was, simultaneously, divine and human during His Earthly life. He took on the garb of humanity, but never ceded His divinity in the act of the Incarnation.
Per CCC 355, male and female counterparts were required to properly image God as “man”. From this interpretation, both male and female are equal subsets of the divine, jointly required to image Christ in fullness. It logically follows, from this accepted teaching of the Church, that the priesthood fully images Christ when it incorporates both constituent members- male and female. One without the other is still fundamentally human, but only in an incomplete fashion. From this logic, the only way to accurately image Christ in the priesthood is through the inclusion of both genders.
Christ’s Incarnation teaches us that we are humans, foremost. Individually, we are partial approximations of His Divinity. Collectively, we approximate His essence most closely.
It is questionable of the Church to make arbitrary distinctions about who we think more closely images Christ. We are all incomplete reflections of His Divinity. We could also say, “But God clearly intended that all priests be of Middle Eastern origin, because the canonical apostles were all Middle Eastern!” Yet, modern priests hail from all countries and ancestries, and not all Jews. Similarly, none were extremely elderly, yet we permit priests to remain active into old age (many of the most senior emeritus cardinals are in their 90s!). We didn’t have any paraplegic apostles, deaf apostles, or apostles with one leg. We do not require these distinctions be perpetuated, yet the doctrine of gender persists on comparable logic.
It is instructive to think of the origin of some of the earliest recognized priests. Many were gentiles “outside” the Church who, through acts of free will that allowed their cooperation with grace, chose to unite fully in the Church. Christ was, by definition, never separate from Himself. Are we to infer from that fact that the first accepted priests were illegitimate? No, we learn a much more exciting and enlivening message! Through full cooperation with God, we grow closer to Him in love and service. And, really, what better service exists than to bring Christ to His people in the Eucharist?
Again, per CCC 355, I must disagree with the assertion that a woman would not properly represent the sacramental content associated with administering Communion.
First, the species of Communion is Christ Himself, in which we receive Christ in His totality. The priest is not presenting himself as Christ, but is adopting the formula instituted by Christ to properly trans substantiate the bread and wine. Priests, by virtue of holy orders, are able to execute the transsubstantiation, but they remain distinct from the perfect and eternal Christ in the Eucharist. Christ is the sacrament par excellence.
Second, in the sacrament of Holy Orders, priests are inducted into an order of priesthood modeled on Christ. What do we know about Christ? We are taught that he was, simultaneously, divine and human during His Earthly life. He took on the garb of humanity, but never ceded His divinity in the act of the Incarnation.
Per CCC 355, male and female counterparts were required to properly image God as “man”. From this interpretation, both male and female are equal subsets of the divine, jointly required to image Christ in fullness. It logically follows, from this accepted teaching of the Church, that the priesthood fully images Christ when it incorporates both constituent members- male and female. One without the other is still fundamentally human, but only in an incomplete fashion. From this logic, the only way to accurately image Christ in the priesthood is through the inclusion of both genders.
Christ’s Incarnation teaches us that we are humans, foremost. Individually, we are partial approximations of His Divinity. Collectively, we approximate His essence most closely.
It is questionable of the Church to make arbitrary distinctions about who we think more closely images Christ. We are all incomplete reflections of His Divinity. We could also say, “But God clearly intended that all priests be of Middle Eastern origin, because the canonical apostles were all Middle Eastern!” Yet, modern priests hail from all countries and ancestries, and not all Jews. Similarly, none were extremely elderly, yet we permit priests to remain active into old age (many of the most senior emeritus cardinals are in their 90s!). We didn’t have any paraplegic apostles, deaf apostles, or apostles with one leg. We do not require these distinctions be perpetuated, yet the doctrine of gender persists on comparable logic.
It is instructive to think of the origin of some of the earliest recognized priests. Many were gentiles “outside” the Church who, through acts of free will that allowed their cooperation with grace, chose to unite fully in the Church. Christ was, by definition, never separate from Himself. Are we to infer from that fact that the first accepted priests were illegitimate? No, we learn a much more exciting and enlivening message! Through full cooperation with God, we grow closer to Him in love and service. And, really, what better service exists than to bring Christ to His people in the Eucharist?
Last edited:
A
alphawoman
Guest
The Pontifical Biblical Commission concluded that there was insufficient scriptural basis to deny Holy Orders to women. As with Humanae Vitae, it was another instance of the papacy diverging from the sensus fidelium—including a heavy contingent of senior bishops—to maintain continuity in the most recent interpretation of the doctrine of infallibility.
Last edited:
A
Agathon
Guest
There are serious doubts of the infallibility of the PBC at the time.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Nice analysis up till this point, but this assertion is erroneous. Where does CCC 355 say that genders are required to image God? After all, God is genderless – purely spirit. How does a physical body ‘image’ God? How does a gender – or combination of genders – ‘image’ God?
So, no: male and female engenderedness aren’t ‘required’. Nor are they the ‘image’. Humanity – that is, הָֽאָדָם֙ or ἄνθρωπον or hominem – is what is “in the image of God”, not ‘male’ or ‘female’ or ‘male + female’.
If your argument hinges on your false assertion, then it doesn’t stand up. It fails on two counts: the suggestion of a ‘gender basis requirement’ for God’s image, and the assertion that engenderedness itself is what images God. Rather, we image God in our human personhood. That is, we image Him in our eternal soul, which is an essential component of our humanity.
No. This is erroneous theology. If this were the case, then individually we would not image God. That’s not at all what the Church teaches. Each of us, individually, images God. Each of us, individually, can attain to heaven. Each of us, individually, is justified, undergoes sanctification, and hopefully, perseveres to salvation.
You’re changing the goal-posts. The imago Dei and the notion of standing in persona Christi capitis are distinct, and cannot validly be conflated in this way. I understand that, if you were able to make this conflation, you’d be able to make your case more convincingly. However, such a conflation is in error.
The first eleven were Jews. Inside the Church. Nevertheless, once the spread of Christianity among the Gentiles began, priests weren’t ordained from ‘outside’ the Church – they were first baptized, so that, implicitly, they were already inside the Church at the time of their ordination.
Last edited:
E
Elizabeth3
Guest
Male and female image Christ in our sharing of a human nature. But it doesn’t necessarily logically follow that the priesthood needs both members to fully image Christ. The priest’s humanity already represents both male and female, as we both share this in common, but his being male is what makes him fit to represent Christ as the Son of the Father and as our Head. Priests also represent the Fatherhood of God, that’s why we call them Father. What would we call a woman priest? Father Jane?
The priest is also offering the sacrifice in union with the whole Church, which is made up of male and female. We join our prayers to the prayers of the priest as members of the Body of Christ. It is both priest and members together that make up the whole Christ as Head and Body. It’s not both male and female as priests that make up the whole Christ.
1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body.
This is not in the CCC.
Last edited:
- Status