The first human person was created both male and female and was gender fluid

Try:

youtube.com/watch?v=kgou9QDR4KM

Substrate and incarnation is feminine. The energy and act are masculine.

What does this even mean?

And remember, Christ was female first because his only biology was female until it was changed by God.

Completely unsupported assertion. Christ was created male, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Nor is there any reason why God would first create Christ as female and then change Him.

Most likely because if he’d not been given a male body, He never would have gotten past day 2 of His message before being stoned to death.

Scripture reports more than one incident in which mobs tried to stone Christ and were unable to harm Him.

Duties which by the nature of the era and the cultures it was set against were awkward for men to partake of… This is a point that those who talk about women Deacons often overlook. They did have a role in the early Church but they were not priests. The role of Deaconess still exists today in fact. The Church Fathers discuss the role of women in such a ministry but it should not be understood as been a female priest or anything of the kind.

So this person is ok with women promoting something - even something they consider superfluous or nonsense - as long as a woman promotes it? Seems like sexism to me. They don’t like the idea or presentation, just the presenter’s gender???:shrug:

The first thing is, she is distorting something she probably does not understand. JP2’s TOB is a deep, DEEP, work that is no more designed for the layman than is a physics textbook.

So take my observations with a grain of salt.
My understanding of Sec 8 is thus:
JP is observing a profound truth prior to sexual differentiation::
human beings are a unity of body and soul.

Before you can say a human being is “male or female”, you must first accept the reality of embodiment, or incarnation. If you do not accept that human beings are inseparably body and soul, then gender is indeed an almost meaningless and plastic thing. This idea is almost carelessly rampant in our modern thinking. Many people are dualists.

This homogeneity concerns above all the body, the somatic structure. It is also confirmed by the man’s first words to the woman who has been created: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gn 2:23).(15) Yet the words quoted refer also to the humanity of the male. They must be read in the context of the affirmations made before the creation of the woman, in which, although the “incarnation” of the man does not yet exist, she is defined as “a helper fit for him” (cf. Gn 2:18 and 2:20).(16) In this way, therefore, the woman is created, in a sense, on the basis of the same humanity.

Tell her that if gender were as fluid as she claims, then transgendered people wouldn’t want to be the opposite gender, but rather some sort of third gender.

Christi pax.

Hi!
…I suspect that the accumulative reasoning is that since conception takes place in the woman’s womb and since the child receives all of his/her nourishment from the female body, the substrate, the place where life is created and maintained, determines the gender of the Incarnated Word.

The problem with that premise is that it rejects God’s direct intervention in the Conception of the Child and it ignores completely that God can do all things, including providing the raw material, XY chromosomes, that would interact with Mary’s XX chromosomes to generate the Conception of a male Child.

…the argument that if Christ had been born a woman He would not have lasted past the second day of Ministry is void and superfluous since hidden in Christ, Who Existed as God from the very Beginning, the gender identifiers were masculine (the Son of God, the Son of man).

Maran atha!

Angel

Hi!
…much like the accusations against the Church as the culture of death supporters seek to confuse and muddle reality with their construct… feebleminded people, the ignorant, the eager-to–please (turn coats), the anti-Catholics and the anti-Christ quickly sup it all up… it is the control-freaks and haters that call the Church anti “x, y, z” while bludgeoning Faith, Reason, and Hope to a bloody pulp–the iron fist that the West feared would bear down on it from the East was never realized… sadly, as most destruction of empires, the fist has been taking shape right from the West’s core as it rapidly and massively engulfs the whole world… at times the fist goes by the name of New World Order.

Maran atha!

Angel

First off, evolutionary history refutes this. Catholicism (and therefore biblical Christianity) has no problem whatsoever in accepting the largely-proved theory that animals have evolved from less complex life forms over time. This would include the material human body (NOTE: not the human soul). Science says this. It is not contrary to the faith. And it must be affirmed or else our faith will look silly and anti-reason.

Since the human body (again, not soul) likely evolved from earlier life forms, it must have evolved in a group that was male and female: That is, earlier hominids who probably looked like us in many ways but did not have the same intellectual and definitely did not have the same spiritual capacities.

This right here should be enough to refute the argument.

However, when it comes to differentiation between the sexes and therefore the potential of a differentiation of roles or “complementarity,” one ought to sit back and ask: DO I believe God created the entire world? DO I believe God’s design included male and female? Obviously, there exist men and women. So does one believe this is mere accident, or is it divine design?

God did not have to create the world that he did. He is omnipotent. He could have made asexual beings that reproduce in some other way. But nope; there exist sexual reproduction and males and females with differentiation.

We should expect there to be a reason for this differentiation, even beyond mere reproduction.

NOTE: However, we must not simplify things. Truth is, there exist people today and in the past who do not experience a strict male/female differentiation in all its aspects. Some people have un-chosen sexual attraction to members of the same sex. Some people are indeed born in a “fluid” gender state whereby they have physical features of both men and women. Again, some experience within themselves a very deep disharmony between their physical sex and mind, thoughts, feelings, and self understanding of gender.

We cannot minimize these realities. They affect many people and their experience with religion, as well, because they are so intimate aspects of themselves. The church has not always been the best at fully recognizing human sexual diversity. Whether such diversity is directly willed by God, as many progressive Christians would say, or is only permitted by God (and is perhaps due to the Fall, for example), nonetheless many believers are affected and scandalized by how the church sometimes treats such issues.

While this may indeed be true, we have to be much more empathetic. It is not as if “liberals” just say this to promote some ideology. Many people experience deep within themselves disharmony between what others (for example, the church) says is the “norm” and what they themselves experience to be real. That is, some people are gay, or transgender, or are born with both male and female physical parts, etc. All of these do not correspond with the classical complementary model of male-female, and so these persons must be approached delicately and with understanding.

Or else they will reject a church that so seems to reject them.

The best answer to an all-male priesthood and the accusation that the church is anti-women is to assert:

Indeed, women can do all that men can do, sometimes better. They can hold the same jobs, and they oftentimes should. They can hold positions of power, influence, and leadership – even in the church. BUT the priesthood is not a job, it is a sacramental office.

A priest is not just a function or role in the church, it is a position that points to something more: To Christ. And while all people bring Christ to others in unique ways, not all do so in the same way. Christ and the Apostles show that men were ordained to point to Christ in the re-presentation of Christ’s priestly mission in the Eucharist.

This conversation can get clouded especially when considering non-Catholic ministers who are women. By all means, many of them have valid reasons for appointing women ministers–even pastors. They do not even claim a sacramental priesthood or a sacrificial Eucharist or the power to represent Christ in the forgiveness of sins (confession). These women make good pastors, leaders, and teachers.

But for the Orthodox and Catholic Christian, once you add the Eucharistic sacrifice, it is a step too far: Christ chose men because he himself was men. The Eucharist makes present that same sacrifice of Christ, through the ministry of the priest. At mass, Christ acts through the priest and makes him present.

Hi!
…only one issue with your intro… not so much “evolutionary history” as theory of evolution–we must remember that science has not proven evolution but that the findings (fossils and fossil resins) point to certain congruence/acceptance of the theory… unless you know of specific transitional proof (various stages of universal change), we are still dealing with theory not explicit demonstrative proof.

…as for the fluidity of gender… these extremes are not the norm, as are not conjoined twins; in those cases the body shuts down either or both sex organs. However, since we are Created in the Image and Likeness of God, we can will ourselves to any “choice” (as with those who at the end of the century began experimenting with removing/incapacitating their limbs).

Maran atha!

Angel

Hi!
I concur with you about the intricacy and delicacy of the issues faced by people who have acquired gender issues… but we must be prudent as well as compassionate; there are, in my personal opinion, a very small number within these who are truly driven by disharmony and not just a root desire…

While some believe that the correct response is to “let them be,” meaning: the Church must change Doctrine to accommodate the desire/choice of transgenderism, that is a far cry from theological reasoning. The Call made to man is to be holy (perfect)–that is, to increase in righteousness; accommodating Christian Faith to embrace people in their “choices” is flawed.

Maran atha!

Angel

Actually there are a lot of scholars who take this view. You can of course disagree with it (I’m not sure I’m convinced myself), but reviling it as ignorant backfires on yourself.

Edwin

Hi, Edwin!
…I don’t mean to disagree with “scholars,” but have you noticed that their theories are presented as fact without evidential proofs?

…I can recall an old argument about the “fallacy” of Scriptures claiming that humanity had only two sets of parents (Adam and Eve); they expressed it as an impossibility for all of the human genome to be held by only two candidates… in truth, I never paid it much attention (don’t really know where or when the argument ensued)… yet, years later “scholars” stated that all primates (inclusive of homo xyz) were descendants of one monkey-like female…

Clearly, an Omnipotent God could not compress all of humanity’s raw materials into two parents but science could determine, without evidentiary proof, that one monkey-like creature did contain not only humanity’s raw material but also that of all the primates (non-homo xyzs)…

Maran atha!

Angel

They had a role of course and still do but that doesn’t mean they were ever ordained or ever will be. Entirely different matter!!! Women assist at the baths at Lourdes too but that doesn’t make them ordained or need be. Men help the men too but their not ordained either. God Bless, Memaw

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with scholars. The problem comes when you simply dismiss them without looking carefully and the reasons why they say what they say.

but have you noticed that their theories are presented as fact without evidential proofs?

That’s a strange way to put it. We’re talking about textual interpretation. People look at the text in the original language, with whatever light archeological discoveries and other literary texts may shed, and come up with interpretations to fit the evidence. The one under discussion here is associated primarily with the feminist scholar Phyllis Trible, though she’s persuaded a lot of people. From what I was able to tell from an online search just now, it looks as if her view is a minority position. I was not claiming that it’s necessarily correct, only that your very rude response that the person suggesting this must have “reading comprehension” problems was utterly un-called-for.

…I can recall an old argument about the “fallacy” of Scriptures claiming that humanity had only two sets of parents (Adam and Eve); they expressed it as an impossibility for all of the human genome to be held by only two candidates… in truth, I never paid it much attention (don’t really know where or when the argument ensued)… yet, years later “scholars” stated that all primates (inclusive of homo xyz) were descendants of one monkey-like female…

Mitochondrial Eve. However, scientists do not believe that there was only one human pair at that time. Even if, as recent discoveries apparently suggest (something I just discovered while working on this post), “Y-chromosomal Adam” may have lived in the same period as “Eve” rather than 100,000 years later as formerly believed–that still doesn’t mean that they were the only humans existing in their day. Scientists certainly do not believe that human beings experienced a “genetic bottleneck” as severe as that.

And we are not talking about “monkey-like creatures” but recognizable members of our species. Perhaps in fact they did live at the same time and really are our Biblical “Adam and Eve.” But we would have then to explain the theological status of all the other humans existing in their day, and the many people who lived before the genetic material from these two people spread throughout the whole human race. I really don’t think that trying to interpret the Biblical account in genetic terms is a viable approach.

Clearly, an Omnipotent God could not compress all of humanity’s raw materials into two parents

I’m not sure what that means exactly.

but science could determine, without evidentiary proof,

There is genetic evidence for the theory. I’m not sure what you mean by “without evidentiary proof” other than “I don’t want to believe this.”

that one monkey-like creature did contain not only humanity’s raw material but also that of all the primates (non-homo xyzs)

Who believes that?

All the primates? That is not what “mitochondrial Eve” is about at all.

Edwin

Ever since I thought that being a priest would be great because there would be a huge parish party when the priest celebrated his first Mass, I have, off and on, thought about why some women consider that being a woman priest is necessary. Obviously, the Catholic Church believes that priests are necessary but that is not the same issue I see.

In the first three chapters of Genesis, male and female are not created at the same time. It is clear that both have the same human nature at the same time they are described as individuals. If Adam and Eve are equals in every way, then Original Sin flies out the window. Two persons cannot be the original sinner. Still, both women and men have the same opportunity to fulfill the opportunity presented in Genesis 1:27.

Gender fluid or whatever takes a back seat because each person is a true separate individual who has to pay attention to Genesis 2: 15-17. The obedience issue is still with us. It can be argued that obedience is not a gender issue, Genesis 3:7 and other examples in Genesis, chapter 3. Obedience does not specify a specific vocation in life. Not everyone has to specialize in the science of agriculture. Genesis 2: 15.

The key argument regarding women priests is actually a question. If one is looking forward to joy eternal in the Presence of the Beatific Vision, what is primarily necessary? It is not our human title, for example priest; it is how we live in love of God. “How” is not related to any kind of necessity of woman priests.

Years ago, I talked with a woman who said she was called by God to be a minister according to her Protestant Religion. Catholic women can believe that they have the same “calling.” The difference is that the Catholic Church is different from all other Christian religions. It is definitely not a people democracy because it yields to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit which Jesus promised. Chapter 14, Gospel of John.

I see the wisdom of male priests in connection with the Last Supper. What is essentially important is that all humans, regardless of their sex, can receive the Jesus promised in chapter 6, Gospel of John. One does not have to be a priest in order to unite with the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharistic bread and wine in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Nonetheless, a male priest does bring home the fact that Jesus assumed a male nature. “Like a shepherd He feeds His flock; in His arms He gathers the lambs,” Isaiah 40:11

The essential desire of both women and men is to be a member of the Good Shepherd’s flock. Catholic women especially need to discern a “calling” to the priesthood because the temptation to be angry at God can happen. Pride can be a hidden temptation which can lead to a revolt against the unique Catholic Church.

We women need to say extra Hail Mary prayers because it is hard to give up the goal of being equal priests. We need to keep front and center the words “The Lord is with Thee.” Having the Lord with us is primary. Being a woman priest is not necessary for having the Lord with us.

Pardon me. “meaning God is male” is not the correct interpretation of Genesis 1: 26-27.

Right. It’s actually heresy to say that God is either male or female (leaving the Incarnation aside, of course).

Edwin

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.