Why a woman cannot be ordained a priest.

[polonius]

The Catholic Church insists that it cannot ordain women priests and any such attempt to do so is invalid.

The original reason was stated in Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

"Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she. would not receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions;
Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order . . . Summa Theologica Suppl. qu. 39 art. 1.


However, this argument isn’t taken seriously any longer. So the Church had to come up with a new reason not to ordain women.

The argument now used that Christ made apostles of men only, only a man can be ordained. But if we follow this logic, although Romans and Greek were in Israel in Christ's time, he only made Jews apostles. So, if the Church is to use parallel reasoning, only Jews can be ordained priests.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

Hah! You made a beautiful point in applying the Church's "logic" to the parallel between the "Jesus only ordained males" and the scriptural claim that he also only ordained Jews, and so, in order to be consistent, the Church should mandate that only Jews should be ordained into the priesthood.

Nicely done.

[101G]

The Catholic Church insists that it cannot ordain women priests and any such attempt to do so is invalid.

The original reason was stated in Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

"Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she. would not receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions;
Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order . . . Summa Theologica Suppl. qu. 39 art. 1.


However, this argument isn’t taken seriously any longer. So the Church had to come up with a new reason not to ordain women.

The argument now used that Christ made apostles of men only, only a man can be ordained. But if we follow this logic, although Romans and Greek were in Israel in Christ's time, he only made Jews apostles. So, if the Church is to use parallel reasoning, only Jews can be ordained priests.

if that's the case then why did God ordained prophets which women hold. 1 Corinthians 12:28 "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. .

and the Greek word for set here is ordain. G5087 τίθημι tithemi (tiy'-thee-miy) v.
θέω theo (the'-�) [an alternate in certain tenses]
1. to place.
2. (properly) to lay in a passive or horizontal posture.
{in the widest application, literally and figuratively; differs from G2476, which properly denotes an upright and active position, while G2749 is properly reflexive and utterly prostrate}
[a prolonged form of a primary theo theh'-o (which is used only as alternate in certain tenses)]
KJV: + advise, appoint, bow, commit, conceive, give, X kneel down, lay (aside, down, up), make, ordain, purpose, put, set (forth), settle, sink down

and the same word is used where Paul said he was ordained a preacher,
1 Timothy 2:7 "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.


PICJAG

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

Hah! You made a beautiful point in applying the Church's "logic" to the parallel between the "Jesus only ordained males" and the scriptural claim that he also only ordained Jews, and so, in order to be consistent, the Church should mandate that only Jews should be ordained into the priesthood.

Nicely done.

It's false logic, steve. Jesus CHOSE men from a population made up of 50:50 men and women. God knows why. His sample population included no Chinese because of the restrictions in his area of work. It is logical to follow Christ where Christ had a choice; illogical to refuse access to Chinamen on the basis that Christ chose no Chinamen. Christ's immediate sample group involved Jews. Later, when he became less racially prejudiced, he advised his apostles to "teach all nations." That would suggest he anticipated some of those taking on sacerdotal roles.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

Quote:
The argument now used that Christ made apostles of men only, only a man can be ordained. But if we follow this logic, although Romans and Greek were in Israel in Christ's time, he only made Jews apostles. So, if the Church is to use parallel reasoning, only Jews can be ordained priests... polonius.advice

I remember asking one of my teachers this, a Catholic father and being astounded that this was the reason. He admitted to me he agreed with my amazement.

Yes, I remember having this same conversation with another member here.

Do people ever get tired of repeating the same false stereotypes and strawmen arguments?

But we can see how they get perpetuated, right? We have one person who doesn’t have all the information make a statement. Then we have a couple of equally ill informed followers chime in agreeing how they too agree with how absurd the original reasoning is. <sigh>

First, Jesus had no problem with ignoring social and cultural restraints. He wasn’t scared of being seen talking to the woman at the well. He told the story of the Good Samaritan to cut across racial barriers. He had many women followers who He respected deeply. He did exactly what His Mother wanted Him to do at the wedding feast of Cana – showing her respect and honoring her wish. The first people to see the risen Lord were women. I find it hard to believe Jesus was scared to appoint a woman Apostle because of what others would think. He was there to shake things up, so to chalk it up to some kind of social norms is kind of silly. Let’s look a little deeper, shall we?

God created us male and female. Science confirms we are different. Why didn’t God create men to give birth? Surely He could have. Does this mean He felt men inferior? Why can’t people accept the differences between the sexes? Christ had a male nature. A priest acts in persona christe. In order to act in persona christe one needs to share the nature of Christ. It’s really that simple. If you don’t like it – take it up with Christ. But it would kind of be like a man complaining he can’t be a mother. And why the heck do you care anyway? We all have different roles. We are all children of God. We are all called to serve. Do you need some title in front of your name? Does one need to be an ordained priest to serve Our Lord? To whine and complain about “not getting to be a priest� is to not understand what the priesthood is, Christianity, God’s creation, etc. It’s weird.

[polonius]

God created us male and female. Science confirms we are different. Why didn’t God create men to give birth? Surely He could have. Does this mean He felt men inferior? Why can’t people accept the differences between the sexes? Christ had a male nature. A priest acts in persona christe. In order to act in persona christe one needs to share the nature of Christ. It’s really that simple. If you don’t like it – take it up with Christ. But it would kind of be like a man complaining he can’t be a mother. And why the heck do you care anyway? We all have different roles. We are all children of God. We are all called to serve. Do you need some title in front of your name? Does one need to be an ordained priest to serve Our Lord? To whine and complain about “not getting to be a priest� is to not understand what the priesthood is, Christianity, God’s creation, etc. It’s weird.

RESPONSE: You are overlooking the facts of history and the formal teachings of the Catholic Church from St Thomas Aquinas monumental Summa Theologica.

"Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order . . . Summa Theologica Suppl. qu. 39 art. 1.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 12 by 101G]

So what point are you making? Are you suggesting women should be Apostles?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 12 by 101G]

So what point are you making? Are you suggesting women should be Apostles?

RESPONSE: No priests. Please read the header.

[RightReason]

[Replying to polonius.advice]

RESPONSE: You are overlooking the facts of history and the formal teachings of the Catholic Church from St Thomas Aquinas monumental Summa Theologica.

"Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order . . . Summa Theologica Suppl. qu. 39 art. 1.

I overlook nothing. This corroborates my post. It is not possible for a woman to be a priest because of her state – she is female not male.

Christ's Church is His bride.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

The simple answer of course is misogyny. Misogyny expressed in ancient times that quite astonishingly is still influencing modern people.

The difficulty here is to understand why people today would cling to ancient and outdated prejudices. Perhaps a fear of thinking for themselves? What else could it be?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Christ's Church is His bride.

Yes, a bride made of both male and female members.

Christ had a male nature. A priest acts in persona christe. In order to act in persona christe one needs to share the nature of Christ.

Actually, Christ has both a male and female "nature" - see Wisdom for example (Proverbs 8).

Regardless, it makes no sense to think that the "nature" of Christ is about gender, rather than spirit.

You are focusing on the flesh, when the flesh counts for nothing. As if the most important thing about sharing the nature of Christ is to be male. That makes no sense. People can be male and know nothing of Christ (as the priesthood of the RCC reveals); while some can be female and know Christ. And vice versa.


The nature of Christ is not tied up in, or dependent upon, the male gender.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy