MERGED: Woman priests & Women priests again


#1

Why do you think Christ didn’t call woman to be priests?


#2

Because of what “priest” means, as well as what “priestess” means.


#3

I’m not talking about titles I’m talking about power and duty.


#4

Priesthood is about the farthest from “power” that there can possibly be. It is in fact about ‘service’.

As far as ‘duty’, there is a ‘priesthood of believers’ to which male and female are called as their ‘duty.’

Priesthood–consecrated, Holy Orders priesthood–is not a ‘duty’ of a man–it is a VOCATION, or a calling. No one has a ‘right’ to it and no man is ‘obliged’ to answer the vocation from God.


#5

Perhaps we shouldn’t know lol

I’d guess it was so that his new priesthood would be seen more clearly in relation to the old priesthood. More clearly configured to himself. Alter Christus, in persona Christi.


#6

I think Kreeft explains it better than I could.


#7

I’m specifically asking why the Church made the choice by the sacrament of Holy Orders of ordaining men and not woman?


#8

“Priest” means one called by the proper authority (God through His Church) to be the “sacerdos”.

Women are not called by God through His Church to be this, therefore “Christ (God) didn’t/(doesn’t) call woman to be priests”.

Women are called to be mothers. Men are called to be fathers.

No mother can be, by definition, a father. And no father can be a mother.

Why is this so hard for people to accept?


#9

It wasn’t (isn’t) the Church that made the choice, it was Christ Himself. The Church can only be obedient to His choice.


#10

I think it’s hard for people to accept this because they want gender equality – each position open for each gender.

However, this rests on a faulty assumption – that priests are somehow better than nuns – and that is not the case. Each have been called by Christ to fulfill a wonderful position within His Church. Think of it as a doctor and nurse type of thing… traditionally, men were doctors while women were nurses. Does this make the doctors sexist, or the nurses lesser? No, not at all! Without nurses, doctors could not do their jobs; in a similar fashion, priests depend upon nuns for a variety of things.

So you see, it’s not about gender inequality because being a priest is no greater than being a nun. They are brothers and sisters in Christ, none of them an inherently better person for following their calling.


#11

Besides the article by Peter Kreeft mentioned and linked in a previous post, there is also this article that you might find helpful:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a51.htm

Welcome to CAF, btw. :slight_smile:


#12

I tend to go with the ‘clearest’ explanation.

Christ is God and is perfect. He is also ‘unchanging’ (God does not ‘change’ for if He did, He would not be God). We know for a fact through Scripture and Sacred Tradition that God, when He first made covenant with humanity, instituted male priests. He was perfectly ‘able’ to institute ‘male and female’ or even ‘female’ alone. Female ‘priestesses’ were not only well known to the world of the ancient Israelites, they were on the whole well respected throughout history. It would not have been at all surprising for the Israelites then to have had ‘female’ priests.’ But. . . that is not what God instituted.

Therefore, He not only MEANT to have ‘only men’, He obviously meant to have it ‘remain’ only men. For those who bleat of ‘it was a cultural thing, meant to change’ thus bind God’s actions and make Him subject to MAN’s whims and wiles. . .blindly.

And thus, He had a reason; indeed, He likely had many reasons as God’s ‘intellect’ is vastly greater than ours and His knowledge is infinite and His plan for the universe is completely known to Him (not to us).

We can only speculate. Many have, with study and inspiration, come up with some possibilities, the strongest of which is that priests ‘now’ do stand ‘in persona Christi’. This is no way denigrates the ‘role’ of women or makes them inferior for it is plain in Christian teaching that as ‘souls’ male and female are equal in their intrinsic WORTH; as beings they possess innate worth.

However as we know, as beings we are NOT equal in form, function, capacity, socioecomics. . .basically, each individual is just that–an individual–some with great strength, others with great weakness; some with great beauty, others great ugliness; some with great wealth, others greatly poor; some capable of great evil and others of great good, etc.

The consecrated priesthood is one of great service to all. One could argue that women by and large already have, historically speaking, BEEN of ‘great service’ simply by being women. . .often poor, often overlooked, often worked to death without recompense, etc.

It is my personal opinion that it is in fact a greater SACRIFICE historically speaking for a MAN (who most often has greater physical strength and much more OPPORTUNITY to be ‘free’ and to become rich and to do as he likes) to become a humble priest. . .under vows often and even if not under vows, still to be at the beck of call of others ALL HIS LIFE, not able to ‘do as he pleases’ but constantly trying to serve others.


#13

Everyone above me posted brilliant and profound points about this issue on a theoligical ground.

But also, what you must understand, is that it is partially sacred tradition. And, as you may know, sacred tradition, as reiterated by the Fathers of Second Vatican Council, is was of the main pillars in preserving our Roman Catholic Faith.

To put it simply, the Church would not at all be the same if she ordained women to the priesthood. To those Catholics that want women to be ordained, I just show them the door to the Episcopal Church. In our Catholic Faith, there are things that are maleable and things that are not. As result from Vatican II, we saw that things such as liturgy are maleable. However, issues that concern the gender of the priests of Christ in the Roman Catholic Church is something that is not maleable.


#14

From the time Adam and Eve were made, through the consequnces of sampling the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and to the present day, God has differentiated between men and women. God called men and women to service through Scriptures, but the calls were clearly different. Not in whether God loved us or was capable of being pleased by us, but in the what and how of our calls. I don’t see a basis for the contention that our calls must all of a sudden be the same.


#15

Because they are not men.

In all the sacraments, and particularly in the Eucharist, priests act in persona Christi–in the person of Christ. It is Christ who acts, using the priest as his persona. Priests do not merely act on behalf of Christ, they act in his person. Christ was male. Thus priests are male.

The particularity of the incarnation may be viewed as something scandalous; nevertheless it is how God acted. God in his divine nature has no gender. Christ in his human nature is male.

To put it another way, women cannot be fathers.
Neither can men be mothers.


#16

Because He did not want women to be priests.


#17

It is easy to argue that “it’s tradition” or “women just want power” when we do it from the comfort of our thriving parishes with their celibate male priests.

But what of those Catholics who no longer have access to the sacraments because of the shortage of celibate male priests.

theage.com.au/national/catholics-appeal-to-benedict-on-ordination-of-married-men-women-20080711-3dsk.html

Jesus was not one to stand by tradition when people were in need.

Go with Love, Go with God


#18

I would think Christ would find a way to meet those peoples needs and keep with his teachings and laws. I don’t think he would say ok here is a woman, she can be your priest until a man shows up for the job.

BP


#19

From Briarpatch1974
"I would think Christ would find a way to meet those peoples needs and keep with his teachings and laws."

Jesus may be meeting these needs by calling women and married men to the priesthood.
The concept of celibate male priests is tradition.
Jesus did not teach it or make it a law.

Go with Love, Go with God


#20

Jesus may be meeting these needs by calling women and married men to the priesthood.
The concept of celibate male priests is tradition.
Jesus did not teach it or make it a law.

Go with Love, Go with God

The DISCIPLINE of celibate male priests is just that–a discipline. If the Holy Spirit wishes it to be changed for any period of time. . .it will be changed.

WOMEN priests, on the other hand, cannot ever be ordained by the Church because She has NO POWER TO DO SO.

This has been a teaching of the Church–not a discipline or small-t tradition which CAN be changed, but a DOCTRINE–a revealed truth of the Holy Spirit–which CANNOT BE CHANGED.

Please see John Paul II’s “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”. . .he states, CATEGORICALLY, that the Church has no power–not now, not EVER–to ordain women priests.

If you think God is calling women to be Roman Catholic priests, you might be ‘hearing’ something but it isn’t God’s voice.

Finally, Jesus = Spirit = Father. SINCE the Catholic Church (spouse of Christ) THROUGH the Holy Spirit has ‘taught’ that we are to obey the DISCIPLINE of celibate male priests. . .then indeed we can justly claim, “JESUS TAUGHT IT.”


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.