Please respond... male priesthood


#1

Read this:
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm
He says that the sources for catholic arguments are all Catholic- so it’s a circular argument. The male priesthood was only as a result of cultural norms of the time, not because that’s the way Jesus would have had it. All three of those source quote the same reasons, so any one of them would suffice.

The fact that Jesus did not choose women to be apostles (assuming he actually didn’t - most of the relevant quotes come from “Acts” which were written after the fact by what historians would call the “victors” and should therefore be subject to historiographic analysis) despite the fact that he broke social norms for women in other areas is unconvincing. I might point out that Jesus broke social norms for gentiles, but all of his apostles were jews. Should we eliminate any non-semitic priests and bishops? The fact that Jesus (or God) didn’t “foresee” future changes and choose women as an example for us presupposes omniscience, but then that omniscience is used as an argument for why he would not have been at least partially susceptible to the social norms of the day. in that vein, I could argue that there were good and benificent slave owners in America who broke the mold of social norms but did not free their slaves is evidence that they would have supported slavery today. Personally, if i retained my original christian faith I would be offended by the idea of godhead-like omniscience for Jesus. The whole principle of the religion is that God took on human form and suffered like us in order to redeem us. That doesn’t just mean physical pain on the cross. It means the whole gamut of human experience, including psychological pain. The only direct quotes of Jesus (assuming things like the Sermon on the Mount to be an account of the sermon, which would not have been written down and therefore would have been paraphrased by the Gospel writers) are the lamentations on the cross, which clearly speak of psychological torment. While Jesus may have had faith, it was clearly tested at that moment (as it was with the devil in the desert before his ministry began). Faith cannot be tested in an omniscient.

I don’t deny your beliefs, but you can’t sell beliefs with logic unless you and the buyer can agree on the underlying assumptions. I. frankly, cannot accept the blind belief in the supernatural when I see the natural as a sufficient explanation of the world. You can push the idea back to “How did the big bang get started” but that allows for the possible equal status for belief in any version of a creator, or even an endless cycle of being with no begining and no end. To me, that is no more explanation than not believing.


#2

The idea that only men were chosen as priests was due to cultural norms at the time is not a historically supportable argument.

In nearly every culture at the time, women were already serving as priestesses. Look at the Greek and Roman pagan religions. They had priestesses all over the place. The oracles of Delphi were all women.

The topic of ordaining women as priests has been done to death on this forum. After this post, I am unsubscribing from this thread.


#3

Well, if your friend doesn’t even believe in the truth of much of the Gospels or the omniscience of Jesus in His divine nature, then you’re not going to have any hope of convincing 'em about all-male clergy, methinks!

At the most simple level, it’s only partly to do with who Jesus chose as Apostles.

We believe that our priests, in confecting the sacraments, actually act ‘in persona Christi’, not precisely becoming Christ themselves but certainly takin on His role at that point in time.

It’s inappropriate to have a female acting in persona Christi, just as it is to have a female actor portray Christ in a movie. Christ was most definitely male, and being God CHOSE to be of that particular gender.

God does nothing without darn good reason, so we can assume there was a reason He came to earth as a male. And looking at scripture, we can see His masculinity is related to His role as bridgroom in contrast to the Church, which is His bride. You can’t have a female bridegroom, so Christ had to be male, and priests, acting in the same role as bridegroom as His agents, also must be male.


#4

Leaving aside the rest of your post for now, this is a terrible argument on your friend’s part. It assumes that God was not sovereign in choosing when to have the Word become flesh. If God had wanted Christ to live in a time where a female priesthood would have been socially and culturally acceptable, He certainly could have authored His plan for our salvation in that way – but He did not.

If “the way Jesus would have had it” was to have female priests, but He was prevented from having this because of the culture of the time, then why didn’t the Word become flesh in 2005, when this would have been socially acceptable? Could God not have arranged for this?


#5

I’m not sure what you mean. The document clearly states it was not for cultural reasons in part 4. Who is the “He” that says sources for Catholic arguments are Catholic and therefore circular.


#6

There is a male Priesthood because only Fathers can be Fathers, and only Mothers can be Mothers.

There is a female Motherhood for precisely the same reason.

Why are you here if your self-professed materialism is sufficient for you?

That you don’t take the time or effort to situate yourself so as to personally experience the transition from belief in God to confirmation of that belief in God, via the grace of God Himself, is no one’s fault but your own.

Good luck in your scientistic-materialism being fulfilling for you!


#7

Try these two articles:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a49.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/a51.htm


#8

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.