Women priests.... why not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LokisMom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
An insight on this I’d heard in the past.

Would having a woman priest make the Holy Eucharist MORE the Eucharist? No.

The controversy can be a distraction from the more sublime mystery and rob us of the intimacy the Lord is offering us with Himself in the Eucharist.

If, on our way to communion, our spirits are disturbed and consumed with this controversy (or anything that so distracts us really) that we receive Our Lord in a distracted or dismissive way - or without the slightest sense of the awe and majesty of that moment in our lives - we can pretty much be sure that those thoughts are not from the Holy Spirt.
 
CaptFun said:
An insight on this I’d heard in the past.

Would having a woman priest make the Holy Eucharist MORE the Eucharist? No.

The controversy can be a distraction from the more sublime mystery and rob us of the intimacy the Lord is offering us with Himself in the Eucharist.

If, on our way to communion, our spirits are disturbed and consumed with this controversy (or anything that so distracts us really) that we receive Our Lord in a distracted or dismissive way - or without the slightest sense of the awe and majesty of that moment in our lives - we can pretty much be sure that those thoughts are not from the Holy Spirt.
Click to expand...
IMHO, nothing wrong with asking questions and thus learning more about our faith and why we believe what we believe. 🙂
 
I do not purport to be any kind of authority on this, but merely comment as a fellow brother of Christ and His Church. Jesus’ preaching AND actions were revolutionary for the time. I once knew a girl in college twenty some odd years ago who left Christianity to convert to Judaism because she found the teaching of the Church, particularly Saint Paul, to be against her modernist (and largely feminist) sensibilities. She went on about the epistle where Saint Paul writes that women should be quiet in the assembly, don veils on their heads, be submissive to a husband’s instruction and whatnot. She did not appreciate how completely outrageous that was for the time–a time in which men and women did not worship in the same assembly but were in separate areas based on gender!

At any rate, I guess I digress. It seems that because our LORD chose only men to be His apostles is a huge point, when He theoretically could have chosen a woman. Furthermore, he broke bread only with the apostles during the institution of the Eucharist as a sacrament and the priest in pari Christus** is a theologically sound way of viewing why a man can be ordained as deacon or priest. Many women religious and layfolk have greatly influenced the Church through the centuries and they are invaluable. It is the idea that Holy Orders is affiliated with POWER in the Church that needs to be tossed aside; these men are to be servants of us, the faithful, and the bishops as successors of the apostles. It is a vocation and not a right for any male. It is not open to women any more than pregnancy is open to a man.
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
Ok, thanks!

It could just have been a matter of practicality… not Him trying to make a statement either way. The main priority was to get The Word out there.

Again, Im not saying this was the reason. Just saying why I dont think it makes for a convincing argument for those who dont agree with men only priests.
Click to expand...
He was born in the first century in a remote corner of the Roman Empire. He chose fishermen and other folks born in the remote corner of the Empire to be His Apostles. None of this seems practical. Again, Jesus is willing to buck trends that do not suit Him - choosing an all-male priesthood is not a capitulation to His time.

Were practicality His concern, why not be born the son of Caesar? Then He’d have all the political and practical power anyone could want.
 
estesbob said:
The idea that Jesus did not have female apostles because of the culture of the times makes no sense at all,
Click to expand...
Well, that is an opinion of course. He wore the appropriate clothing of the time, it doesn’t mean that any other clothing is forever wrong.
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
Well, that is an opinion of course. He wore the appropriate clothing of the time, it doesn’t mean that any other clothing is forever wrong.
Click to expand...
Opinion that God would have not have been influenced by the culture of people he created??? What kind of God would be swayed by how things would look tol those he created??
 
Tatian said:
He was born in the first century in a remote corner of the Roman Empire. He chose fishermen and other folks born in the remote corner of the Empire to be His Apostles. None of this seems practical. Again, Jesus is willing to buck trends that do not suit Him - choosing an all-male priesthood is not a capitulation to His time.

Were practicality His concern, why not be born the son of Caesar? Then He’d have all the political and practical power anyone could want.
Click to expand...
Or why not be born in the 21st century where we evidently are so much more enlightened than all who went before us.?He could probably learn a lot form us
 
Tatian said:
He was born in the first century in a remote corner of the Roman Empire. He chose fishermen and other folks born in the remote corner of the Empire to be His Apostles. None of this seems practical. Again, Jesus is willing to buck trends that do not suit Him - choosing an all-male priesthood is not a capitulation to His time.

Were practicality His concern, why not be born the son of Caesar? Then He’d have all the political and practical power anyone could want.
Click to expand...
You say it right here though!

He chose only fisherman or poor people… does that mean others who weren’t fishermen shouldn’t be priests? No.

(again, just playing devils advocate here)
 
estesbob said:
Opinion that God would have not have been influenced by the culture of people he created??? What kind of God would be swayed by how things would look tol those he created??
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t word it like that, but if I were a protestant and I asked Catholics why only men can be priests, the whole “Jesus’s apostles were men” wouldn’t convince me personally. I would have just seen it as not that big of a deal that he chose only men.
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
I didnt mean to say that Jesus was sexist. Just that the culture was sexist, and people would have been a lot less likely to listen to a woman during the times when evangelization was most important.

Not saying that this was the reason why there were no women apostles, just saying that it could be a possible way of interpreting the fact that there were no women apostles.

I’m researching on google and there seems to be some debate on whether or not it actually is dogma… so Im a little confussed. Isnt something either dogma or its not??
Click to expand...
Christ did not hesitate to challenge cultural norms, a chief example is the discourse with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), or even his acceptance of tax collectors such as Matthew as Apostles.

Christ was not bound by cultural norms, and, in fact, broke them when it was contrary to Justice.

Nor was the concept of priestess unknown in the world at the time. The Greco\Roman pagan culture had them, and several of the early Popes (and St. Luke himself) were Greek converts. They would have had no cultural objection to women priests. So your statement on the inability of women to evangelize is faulty as Greco\Roman culture would not have any institutional objection to a woman in a religious role.
 
estesbob said:
Or why not be born in the 21st century where we evidently are so much more enlightened than all who went before us.?He could probably learn a lot form us
Click to expand...
No need for the personal (directed at me) sarcastic attacks.

Im asking these questions because Im trying to learn more and have a better understanding of our faith.
 
Brendan said:
Nor was the concept of priestess unknown in the world at the time. The Greco\Roman pagan culture had them, and several of the early Popes (and St. Luke himself) were Greek converts. They would have had no cultural objection to women priests. So your statement on the inability of women to evangelize is faulty as Greco\Roman culture would not have any institutional objection to a woman in a religious role.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the insightful info. Now if this is true, it definitely is more convincing.
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
No need for the personal (directed at me) sarcastic attacks.

Im asking these questions because Im trying to learn more and have a better understanding of our faith.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t directing anything at you. I was commenting (poorly so it appears) on the tendency we have to try and impose our cultural norms on the teaching of the Church. If God had really intended for there to be women Priests I doubt he would have waited 2,000 years to reveal it.
 
Loki(name removed by moderator),

To understand WHY this MUST be the case, we need to look deeply at Catholic theology.

In Catholic terms, a human person is a union of body and soul ( Corpre and Animus Unis). It is not a Soul occupying a body, like Plato once suggested, but what defines the human person is a soul in union with the body. Neither is complete without the other, neither is greater than the other in terms of our human ‘completeness’

We also see in God that His greatest desire is for us to spend Eternity with Him. In other words, to have Saints in Heaven with Him.

Since the human person has two realities, the biological and the ontological, we see the sanctification experience in both.

The woman brings forth the biological, or more specifically, has the greater role in bringing forth the biological aspect of humanity. The priest enhances the ontological. Both operating together are what produce a saint.

We see that reality in the biological sense, where the man and the woman together, but with the woman’s unique biology, bring forth physical life.

In the Sacraments, we see the man, with his unique ontology, bring forth spiritual life. Since the body is the Form of the Soul (thanks to St. Thomas Aquinas), we know that the souls of each person are not only unique, but the souls of men and women differ as well.

Now a Platonist, who views the spiritual elements of humanity to be greater than the biological, would therefore hold that the priest has the greater role in making a saint. Not so with a Catholic. As I mentioned, we are not Platonic dualists. We are Ontologically Unitists.

Nor are we Protestants, who view the priesthood as a simply a presider role, who simply leads a congregation. In our priesthood, the priest brings forth the Sacrament of the Eucharist, an ontological reality that requires a soul that is changed and configured for exactly that purpose, as in the same way, a woman’s body is both changed and configured to bring forth biological life

We therefore see God dividing the role of the participation of His creation of new Saints to be equally and fairly divided between the sexes. And equality and fairness is a good thing

The priesthood is male only because God is fair and values equality 🙂
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
You say it right here though!

He chose only fisherman or poor people… does that mean others who weren’t fishermen shouldn’t be priests? No.

(again, just playing devils advocate here)
Click to expand...
The gospels do not say all the apostles were fisherman–look at Nathaniel and Phillip (nothing about what they did) and then Matthew, the tax collector. Even so, this is getting a bit too polemical for me. It does not and should not matter that Holy Orders is open only to males, as the sacrament of Holy Orders draws its efficacy from the Church as their call relates to the dispensation of the Sacraments, principal of which are baptism, Eucharist, Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick.
 
estesbob said:
I wasn’t directing anything at you. I was commenting (poorly so it appears) on the tendency we have to try and impose our cultural norms on the teaching of the Church. If God had really intended for there to be women Priests I doubt he would have waited 2,000 years to reveal it.
Click to expand...
Ah gotcha, lol :o
 
Brendan said:
Loki(name removed by moderator),

To understand WHY this MUST be the case, we need to look deeply at Catholic theology.

In Catholic terms, a human person is a union of body and soul ( Corpre and Animus Unis). It is not a Soul occupying a body, like Plato once suggested, but what defines the human person is a soul in union with the body. Neither is complete without the other, neither is greater than the other in terms of our human ‘completeness’

We also see in God that His greatest desire is for us to spend Eternity with Him. In other words, to have Saints in Heaven with Him.

Since the human person has two realities, the biological and the ontological, we see the sanctification experience in both.

The woman brings forth the biological, or more specifically, has the greater role in bringing forth the biological aspect of humanity. The priest enhances the ontological. Both operating together are what produce a saint.

We see that reality in the biological sense, where the man and the woman together, but with the woman’s unique biology, bring forth physical life.

In the Sacraments, we see the man, with his unique ontology, bring forth spiritual life. Since the body is the Form of the Soul (thanks to St. Thomas Aquinas), we know that the souls of each person are not only unique, but the souls of men and women differ as well.

Now a Platonist, who views the spiritual elements of humanity to be greater than the biological, would therefore hold that the priest has the greater role in making a saint. Not so with a Catholic. As I mentioned, we are not Platonic dualists. We are Ontologically Unitists.

Nor are we Protestants, who view the priesthood as a simply a presider role, who simply leads a congregation. In our priesthood, the priest brings forth the Sacrament of the Eucharist, an ontological reality that requires a soul that is changed and configured for exactly that purpose, as in the same way, a woman’s body is both changed and configured to bring forth biological life

We therefore see God dividing the role of the participation of His creation of new Saints to be equally and fairly divided between the sexes. And equality and fairness is a good thing

The priesthood is male only because God is fair and values equality 🙂
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top