S
simpleas
Guest
No I don’t get it, would you please explain?
I thought Jesus atoned for the sin of Adam, Jesus was the sacrifice for the sin of Adam, the final sacrifice, no priest makes a sacrifice in place of Jesus?
- Status
I thought Jesus atoned for the sin of Adam, Jesus was the sacrifice for the sin of Adam, the final sacrifice, no priest makes a sacrifice in place of Jesus?
S
simpleas
Guest
Because male and female are made in the image of Christ. One nature. Two beings. Both have different roles to play in bring more humans into the world, but they become one to achieve this, one nature.
S
simpleas
Guest
Sorry but the idea that women serving God as a priest would be the downfall of the church is just…
It reminds me much of the idea that Eve was the “downfall” of Adam.
It’s far to human in thought for me.
But thanks for the info
B
Brendan
Guest
But "Nature’ is not the same thing as soul. The Ontological question of Ordination does not concern the Nature of Humans, If it was all humans would automatically be sacerdotal priests, since we all share a human nature.
The question of the sacerdotal priesthood is one of the ontology of the soul.
Are their distinctions between the souls of men and women. Yes, since the Soul is the Form of the Body, and their are fundamental distinctions between the Bodies of men and women, the souls are thus different. That is pure, orthodox, Aquinas.
The question then can the soul of a woman receive the ontological mark of Holy Orders on their souls.
We have no example from Scripture or Sacred Tradition that would declare that to be so.
At the very best then, it becomes theologically uncertain if it is possible at all. And since we do have the example from Sacred Tradition of the ordination of men, we do have theological certainty on that.
So if woman received an attempted ordination, and attempted to consecrate the Eucharist, if she offered you or I the form of bread and said “The Body of Christ”, the only possible, truthful response would be “Maybe”. I could have not theological certitude that the elements were truly changed in Substance.
With a male ordained in the example of the Apostles, I COULD have theological certitude
and thus can rightly and truthfully respond 'Amen"
R
Rau
Guest
There may not be an answer available. The Church looks to Christ for what is proper in this respect, and his acts, the precedents, are what they are.
R
Rau
Guest
This is how I inderstand it. The Church is unable to conclude that it has authority to ordain women due absence to of instruction and absence of precedent.
C
Contarini
Guest
Right. Hence, the difference is biological. It comes from the body. The soul abstracted from the body, considered without reference to the body, would be the same for all human beings.
And this is the point at which I just go cold. This kind of argument has no traction for me intellectually or emotionally. It makes no sense.
Theological certitude? What strange planet do you live on?
I don’t mean that sarcastically, so much as to signal how differently I approach religious matters from most folks on this forum. I really don’t know what this “certitude” thing is that you guys keep talking about. Or to put it a bit differently:
Last September I attended a Eucharist at Asbury Theological Seminary, about an hour away from where I live in Kentucky. The Eucharist was celebrated by the new dean of the chapel there, a woman (and of course from a Catholic point of view it wouldn’t have been valid if the dean had been a man–I get that, but it accentuates the point I’m trying to make). I received the Eucharist. I don’t know what it would mean to be more certain of anything, in religious terms, than I am that I received Jesus from that woman.
And that is, fundamentally, the main reason I’m not sure I can go through with RCIA. It isn’t just women’s ordination–women’s ordination brings to a head the fact that the entire line of thinking many of you see as the basis of Catholicism (“Jesus gave authority to the Apostles, who gave it to the Pope and bishops, etc., and I can somehow prove this and thus be certain that it’s all real and I am receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus”) is not even remotely believable for me.
What I see, instead, is a broken, messy community, or rather a litter of fragmented communities with sharp edges, like shards of a shattered mirror, that cut and hurt anyone who touches them. And somehow, through all that mess and hurt, Jesus works. I think. I don’t know. But I hope and love and, in snatches, believe. And I see that the biggest of all the shards is this thing called the Catholic Church, and in the fragment called the Catholic Church (or the Roman Catholic Church, or the Roman Communion, or whatever will offend and confuse the smallest number of people) is this thing called the Papacy and a whole bunch of other things that seem to be at the heart of a lot of what is beautiful and good in the other fragments too. And I see that the fragments that have split off the Catholic Church are sharper and nastier the more they insist on their distance from the Church, and brighter and more beautiful they more they turn toward it and toward all the other fragments in love and humility. And I don’t want to be one of the pointy edges. I want the bright mirror to be made whole again. And failing that, I want to be part of a fragment that reflects as much light and points toward wholeness as much as possible.
That’s where I’m coming from. That’s the only place I know how to come from.
Sorry for the rant. But I know I’ve been obnoxious on this thread, and on a lot of threads, and I want people to understand why.
Edwin
R
Rau
Guest
Why are you able to believe that the Eucharist, at Asbury, or in a Catholic Church, is the real presence? That is the greater leap, is it not?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
This is not an ‘appeal to authority’; it is a statement of a Truth.
God has set forth for us, for example, that He is a Trinity. That is His will. Now just exactly what more can we say about this? That God never said in so many words “Hey, I am Three Divine Persons in One God”?
Can we say, “oh, it is only the Catholic Church that says God is Trinity?” That isn’t so, is it? The Church maintains that God is Trinity, but the Church did not come up with that teaching independent of God, did it?
IOW, the Catholic Church is not like a ‘historian’ who compiles a list of ‘facts X, Y, and Z’ about subject A and then concludes, based on the study and it’s worldview’ that Subject A acted on event B and demonstrates X, Y and Z because of. . .'F, G, H and possibly Q" whereas other churches or even individuals are like other historians who look at the same facts and come to different conclusions.
The Catholic Church is more like a mirror reflecting God’s teachings than a ‘commentator’ who determines what he thinks God ‘meant to say’.
One might not like to look in the mirror and see what is reflected, but what happens if the mirror is broken in a fit of temper? The item that it reflected is still there. Breaking the mirror does not change that.
One can try to scribble **over **the mirror, but what is scribbled is not part of what is reflected; it’s like barnacles on a boat, something which can be scrubbed away leaving the boat behind.
And I am still waiting for people to tell me that they believe God can determine that we can baptize with dust (hey, some places lack water), confect the Eucharist with rice cakes and juice (hey, some people are gluten intolerant or alcoholic), and that we can declare Mary as part of the ‘God Quartet’.
Wait, nobody is arguing that? Everybody agrees that God Himself (not 'the Catholic Church) has spoken clearly that He is Trinity, that baptism norms require water, and the Eucharist must be made from wheat bread and grape wine? That these teachings were not ‘made up’ by men, but are and have been consistently ‘reiterated’ by the Church? Then why can’t the same be true about ordination? What makes it ‘suspect’ while the other teachings are believed to come from God?
How come we all accept the Church’s ‘reflection’ of God’s teachings on the above, but suddenly get all squirrely about ordination?
B
Brendan
Guest
No the difference is ontological. It is a matter of the soul, not of the body. The Soul and the Body have tight relationship, the Soul comprising the Form of the Body. Men and Women are not different simpy in body, but also in soul. You are correct that we do share a common Nature, one that Christ assumed. But it is the SOUL that is marked by Holy Orders, not the Body nor the Nature.
Theologic certitude means that the theology of the matter is certain.
It was done by the Apostles, to whom the fullness of the Magisterium was imparted by Christ. Since it was part of the practice of the Faith that was taught by Christ, and passed infallibly to them, it is certain.
That is the heart of what Catholics refer to as “Sacred Tradition”, ALL that Christ passed on to the Apostles, and preserved intact by the Holy Spirit in the Magisterium.
Holy Scripture is a subset of Sacred Tradition, that which is preserved by the Holy Spirit in written form, but the Bible remains a subset of all that was passed on to us.
The Catholic Church, by the truths that it holds, must remain faithful to that, and cannot add anything to it, nor subtract from it.
It is from that the Pope John Paul II noted the lack of authority.
The ordination of men is part of that Sacred, Infallible Tradition, the ordination of women is not. The Church simply was not given the authority to even attempt to ordain women.
S
simpleas
Guest
For me, although Jesus gave the keys to Peter to build his church, I don’t know as a person who lives in 21st century, if that giving of keys meant only for males to minister within the church of Christ, where I thought both male and female were equal.
There was a time in the church when women could be deacons and administer Baptism to females, maybe because a person was fully submerged in the waters, so it was a matter of decency, but they had a role in the ministery.
I did ask one or two questions about how women were viewed within the early church and if this was more of the reason why they were not considered in the image of Christ, but I did not get a answer, so I’ll come to my own conclusion.
There has been much added to the thread, and expressed. Many valid points.
I would not think of any women who believes she is called to the priesthood as delusional as some think.
I need to question why God is always thought of as masculine. That God is referred to as God-man. To many people speak of God and Goddess these days, and I wonder about it all.
Thanks for all the posts.
A
Abu
Guest
Soteriology = the branch of Christian theology that deals with salvation as the effect of a divine agency.
“It seems” is totally inadequate to challenge Christ’s Catholic Church with His mandate to bind and loose. Salvation has been opened for all because of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice and with His foundation of His Church the fullness of truth – confirming to His Chosen Apostles:
“And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. [St Matthew, 28:16-20].
The “why not” has been fully explained.
A
Abu
Guest
Of course you could not have “received Jesus from that woman” because she is not a validly ordained priest, and it would have been identical if it had been a man instead.
Such misapprehensions have to be totally discarded before one seeks to be received into Christ’s Church.
Christ’s Church is not fragmented, and to compare Her still to the thousands of differing sects shows a morass of confusion. Such obvious confusion has to be eliminated and replaced by the Way, the Truth and the Life who is Jesus, who proclaimed:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].
**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
Not trusting in the Son of God needs to be overcome.
A
Abu
Guest
Forget the hype and listen to Christ’s Church. She has infallibly declared that women cannot be priests and why.
“People” cannot and never will be able to learn anything and explain anything, if those people do not listen, learn and love as Christ has commanded through His Church.
The chaos abroad today in thought and action is the direct result of fallen human nature and the failure to listen to the Christ, the Son of God, through His Church.
C
Contarini
Guest
Abu, the only sufficient reason I have for being Christian at all–for trusting in the Son of God or believing that there is a Son of God to trust in–comes from my experience as an evangelical Wesleyan Christian, enriched and deepened by my experience of sacramental, liturgical Christianity.
Essentially my path toward Catholicism, or at least toward an appreciation of Catholicism and a strong impulse to become Catholic, was this:
I experienced Christ as an evangelical Protestant.
It became clear to me that the same Christ I experienced was present in the Catholic Church, and hence that the Protestant propaganda I had heard about Catholicism was false.
It further became clear that by cutting ourselves off from Catholicism we had impoverished that experience.
Hence my persistent desire to become Catholic. But the kind of argument you are making constitutes asking me to kick away the ladder I’m standing on. There is no reason whatever why I would seek to be Catholic, or would be Christian at all, if my experience as an evangelical is simply to be mistrusted and discarded.
Note: I’m not proclaiming fideism or saying that historical and other arguments don’t matter, only that by themselves they would be insufficient.
Edwin
E
edwest2
Guest
Pope John Paul II made his point quite clearly. There is no debating it.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
You’re free not to believe it. God and the Church won’t force you.
Ed
A
Abu
Guest
“Experience” is not His teaching – the warp and woof of Christ and His Church is belief, and practice based on that certainty.
You have already seen the reality that you cannot receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ through the simulation of anyone who is not a priest – no faulty “experience” can suffice for reality. Any genuine teaching and interaction in genuine faith and love need not be, and should not be, discarded but nothing can replace Christ’s Catholic Church to whom He gave the fullness of truth.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Ah but Edwin, we are not saying that your experience of seeking or even knowing Christ when you were an evangelical is ‘simply to be mistrusted and discarded.’
Look at it this way. If the teachings of the Church are true regarding the Eucharist --that it is the True Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, not a symbol, then all the years that you received it AS a symbol, as an Evangelical Christian, would not be considered wasteful or something you should consider shameful and ‘discard’. Were you receiving Christ as the fullness He is? Well no, but you were, insofar as you knew to the best of your ability, engaging in a communion with Him which you perceived as being full at that time. In doing this, you were (as St Augustine wrote) ‘stretching yourself’ to become ABLE to receive Him more fully. God was present among you, He may even have been more ‘present’ (although not Eucharistically so, but still indeed present) to you, a nonCatholic actively seeking to love and serve Him, than He may have been to Catholics and nonCatholics who just ‘go through the motions’ and are spending more time thinking about anything but God and just ‘warming the pews’. So no, your experiences as an Evangelical can be valuable and indeed praiseworthy and something we all can learn from.
But here is the thing that kind of separates Catholicism from many other Christian faiths. . . we encourage, as all Christians do, ‘thinking for oneself’ (because after all, God does not want ‘robots’ who just blindly lockstep along), but the goal of that thinking is to come to agreement with God’s teachings, not ‘reinvent the wheel’ or reject teachings because we don’t have ironclad testimonials signed by God, in triplicate. I mean, the reason we call our faith ‘faith’ and not ‘certitude’ is that we take that leap going from 'this is what is taught to be God’s message to us, we have various testimonies, do we accept them as a preponderance of evidence, and if they are asserted as authoritative by the Church, do we say, “Lord, THY will be done”. . .or do we say, "I just can’t accept this as authority, I need to have more certainty, I don’t trust that the Church is really speaking for God HERE. . "
Look, I’m a 58 year old woman. My gosh, if anybody here knows what women have been ‘taught’ over the last 50 or so years, in Catholic teachings, in secular ideas, in our schools (private and public), in our colleges, in our media, in our relationships with other. . .I do. I lived in the Northeast, the South, and the Southwest. I lived through the decades of experiment, the great societal changes, the whole 9 yards. I was at home with my children early, working as they grew, finally a single parent. Every possible point of Catholic teaching that you can think of, I have been at one point or another thrown every possible ‘interpretation thereof’ and then some. I’ve seen nearly everyone in my family succumb at one point or another to some point ‘against’ a Church teaching (not all the same one, either), reject that teaching, and within a matter of months to years, wind up rejecting not just the Catholic faith but Christianity itself. . .because instead of saying, "This is hard, but I trust Christ and His Church to have a view that transcends what is ‘popular’ today’, they all said, "You know, I truly believe the Church didn’t have X right. And gee, maybe they didn’t have Y right either. Or Z. Or A, B, C. . .come to think of it, the whole thing’s a sham. I’m a good person, I think for myself, and I would not worship a ‘god’ who would (name the teaching of the Church, from male only priests to ‘closed communion’ to ‘against gay marriage’ to pro-life from conception to natural death’ to ‘‘would MAKE a woman be punished with a baby’. . .etc etc etc) and MY god would support (name anything that goes against Catholic doctrine) so I’m going to choose and if God would PUNISH me for thinking for myself, then He’s not a god I want to worship anyway, even if there IS a god which by now I’m doubting’. . .
So Edwin, I know how slippery the road can be from really good, loving, seeking and caring people who took that ‘independent road’ honestly thinking that in doing so they were going to find the ‘real God’ (whom the Catholic Church had either blindly or deliberately ‘flouted’ by teachings X, Y, and Z). . .and wound up finding that they did not believe in any god at all beyond their own ‘choosing to think for themselves’.
Because ultimately we have to remember that the GOAL of thinking for ourselves is to find Truth (which is God). If He has already given us Truth, through the teachings of the Church, then our goal of thinking must ultimately result in us assenting to those teachings and not rejecting them and claiming that the rejection simply means we ‘thought for ourselves’.
I
Ignatius
Guest
It is not open to debate.
E
ericc
Guest
From the discussions, it appears the problem is not of capability or inequality. Restated, the problem seems to flow in the following manner:
Many female saints have encountered God in some mystical manner or other. If the Holy Spirit/Jesus really wants a female priesthood, why don’t we hear of that from the Saints at all? At least I haven’t. Or even the male Saints? All He need to do is to appear to the Pope, to the Bishops, to the Cardinals in some manner and tells them to do it. 2000 years of history , hundreds of saints and not a hint. Not one indicator. Many have been filled with the Holy Spirit and no pronouncement for the female priesthood. Of course that is arguing from silence. Of course arguing that the Church has authority to ordain priestess is also arguing from silence.
- God appointed men to the priesthood in the OT.
- God in the person of Jesus Christ appointed men apostles/bishops to the priesthood in the NT.
- The Church accepted this divine mandate and continued this mandate. Hence, although she has the mandate to spread the Good News, she wasn’t given the mandate to change the priesthood. Peter leading the Church wasn’t given the mandate to appoint/maintain more than 12 Apostles. The questions would be, did he think he has the mandate to expand the 12 to 14 or more or to include female apostles? The same manner that the Church has no authority to change Marian beliefs, the Trinity, the equality of the 3 Persons etc she declares she has no such authority.
- There is no point to argue that it was a man’s world then. The male priesthood is not a product of man, but a product from God himself. He chose them. Priestesses abound during those times. Is that God’s way of showing he wants his faith to be different from others? If that is God’s way, why do you want to oppose him? Since God incorporated such Traditions, why don’t we keep the Traditions as called for by Paul?
- Mother Mary would be the ideal Priestess. She is the first Christian. The King’s Mother. The Gentiles having a pagan priestesshood background would have no issue accepting a Priestess of the highest rank. Or Mary Magdalene. Or the prophetess. But none was ordained. A female priest may represent the people to God. But she can not represent the masculine God as in-the-person-of-Christ to the people. The Son of God is not the Daughter of God. The mother may be the equal of a father. But they are not the same. So is the daughter the equal of any son, but they are not the same. Jesus is not neuter.
Many female saints have encountered God in some mystical manner or other. If the Holy Spirit/Jesus really wants a female priesthood, why don’t we hear of that from the Saints at all? At least I haven’t. Or even the male Saints? All He need to do is to appear to the Pope, to the Bishops, to the Cardinals in some manner and tells them to do it. 2000 years of history , hundreds of saints and not a hint. Not one indicator. Many have been filled with the Holy Spirit and no pronouncement for the female priesthood. Of course that is arguing from silence. Of course arguing that the Church has authority to ordain priestess is also arguing from silence.
- Status