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.

[bluethread]

Peace to you bluethread!

So, when Adonai told Moshe' to say to the people, "Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.", He was literally saying that they would all serve in the Temple, even gentiles?

Not quite. He was not speaking to or about the gentiles at this time. "Although the whole earth is mine, YOU (Israel, the people to whom Moses is speaking) will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."

Israel would have been the kingdom of priests, the holy nation... and the subjects of the Kingdom would have been from among those who were not Israel.

It is true that Adonai was speaking to Israel. However, the laws regarding the office of priest were also given to Israel at the same time. So, He could not have meant the office of priest, in that statement, but that they would be figurative priests, serving as a testimony to Adonai in their behavior.

Consider that it is the entire body of Christ (all Christians - all who are anointed with holy spirit, male or female, gentile or Jew) that will serve as kings and priests in the Kingdom.

They sang a new song, saying, "You are worthy to take the book, and to open its seals: for you were killed, and bought us for God with your blood, out of every tribe, language, people, and nation, and made us kings and priests to our God, and we will reign on earth." Rev 5:9,10

Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him for a thousand years. Rev 20:6


For this reason, ‘They are before the throne of God and serve Him day and night in His temple; Rev 7:15

Those passages speak of the future and not of the priests that are under consideration in the OP. This being the TD&D thread, it could be argued that even my observation does not apply, because we ae talking about the priests of the RCC. However, my point is that, though the RCC can put whatever requirements they would like on their priesthood, those are not the requirements of a priest found in the Scriptures.

That seems to contradict the many commands against any but the Levites serving in the Temple.

Yes, during the time of the Temple and Priesthood. But that temple and priesthood were shadows/copies (physical representations) of of the spiritual things to come.

In which Kingdom there are kings and priests (no longer separated, just as Christ is both King and Priest), as well as subjects (non-Christians who are also invited into the Kingdom based upon the conditions set forth in the parable of the sheep and the goats).

Well, that first is an actual office and there may well be actual offices in the future. However, at the present time, there is no such office, unless one thinks of it as figurative, because thee is no Temple in which to serve.

[101G]

[Replying to post 12 by 101G]

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

and evangelist, pastors and teachers, it's the Lord call, not ours.

PICYJAG

[101G]

[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.

read the bible, Revelation 1:5 & 6 "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 20 by tam]

Quote:
Christ's Church is His bride.


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

I don’t think you understand the analogy. Priests are acting in the place of Christ as being head of the Church. Therefore, a bride does not need another bride. In fact, the relationship fails.

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

Christ was true God AND true man. So. Yeah it makes sense to consider the male nature of Christ. It is part of who He is. But per usual this culture is obsessed with making no distinction between the gender. What are you afraid of? God's creation is beautiful and He had a plan.

You are focusing on the flesh, when the flesh counts for nothing

That is not what is meant by 'the flesh counts for nothing' <sigh> We are human beings and given human bodies. We are Body AND Soul. I embrace all of that. To reduce us to soul/spirit only is actually Gnostic in nature and seeing the flesh as evil/bad.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 23 by 101G]

I ask because you didn't once mention the word priest in your original comment; only prophets, teachers, preachers and Aposltes.Indeed there is no mention of the word priest anywhere to be seen in the entire post.

Here's your comment.

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

Perhaps you can understand my confusion as to what your point was ... it was rather like you making a point about British cake making by writing a comment with no mention of cakes but liberally talking about ... tap dancing.

JW

[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.

read the bible, Revelation 1:5 & 6 "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

RESPONSE Even if you consider this to be "inspired" it does not preclude women from becoming priests.

[tam]

Peace to you RR,

[Replying to post 20 by tam]

Quote:
Christ's Church is His bride.

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

I don’t think you understand the analogy. Priests are acting in the place of Christ as being head of the Church.

No one needs to act in the place of Christ as being the Head of the Church... because Christ is ALIVE, and so acts as Himself as the Head of His Church.

Therefore, a bride does not need another bride. In fact, the relationship fails.

Are you suggesting that the priests are not part of the bride? I do not understand what you are suggesting. Who is the bride that does not need the bride?


I mean... I would agree. The Bride (the Body of Christ) does not need another bride. The Bride (the Body of Christ) needs the Bridegroom: Christ (the Head of the Church).

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

Christ was true God AND true man. So. Yeah it makes sense to consider the male nature of Christ. It is part of who He is.

You ignored this part:

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

But per usual this culture is obsessed with making no distinction between the gender. What are you afraid of? God's creation is beautiful and He had a plan.

And the RCC is obsessed with making a distinction between gender, even though the Bride is made of both male and female members; and the kings and priests who reign with Christ are made of both male and female members. What are you afraid of?



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

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 27 by tam]

No one needs to act in the place of Christ as being the Head of the Church... because Christ is ALIVE, and so acts as Himself as the Head of His Church.

Hmmmm . . And I tell you thatyou are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church,and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.�…

Quote:
Therefore, a bride does not need another bride. In fact, the relationship fails.


Are you suggesting that the priests are not part of the bride? I do not understand what you are suggesting. Who is the bride that does not need the bride?


I mean... I would agree. The Bride (the Body of Christ) does not need another bride. The Bride (the Body of Christ) needs the Bridegroom: Christ (the Head of the Church).

See biblical passage above. Christ built His Church on Peter and gave His Church authority.
“Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heave�. “He who hears you, hears me�

And please don’t suggest Christ built His Church on Peter’s confession. LOL! That fails by a basic analysis of Scripture and was some new revisionist theory invented.

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


Christ was true God AND true man. So. Yeah it makes sense to consider the male nature of Christ. It is part of who He is.


You ignored this part:

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

I ignored nothing, but seems you may be . . .



The nature of God transcends male-ness and female-ness.


It is appropriate to refer to God with a masculine pronoun (“He�) for a number of reasons. “God has a name; He is not an anonymous force� (CCC 203). Therefore our language ought to reflect God’s personhood. We refer to persons as “he� and “she�. These personal pronouns reveal that God is not an “It�, but a “Who�. I realize that referring to God as “God� does not act against God’s personhood, but it certainly does not highlight it.

I do not want to place myself above God Himself. God’s Word refers to God with predominantly masculine pronouns. Jesus tells us to call God “Father�. I do not think that I am in a position to tell Jesus that He was wrong in this. Some may argue that Jesus was just following the tradition of His culture.

That is worth considering, but if Jesus was a “victim� of His time and place on this very important issue, then how do we know when to pay attention to His words and when we should simply disregard them as “cultural limitations�?

None of this means that God is male, but there is something about masculinity that is revealed by God. Surely, there is quite a bit about femininity that is revealed by God as well, but the overwhelming references to God made in the Bible are masculine. I need to ask myself, “Even though I know that this doesn’t tell me that God is male…does it mean anything?� Or are certain parts of the Bible meaningless? We know that Scripture needs to be studied and interpreted; we do not simply take the Bible at face-value. And yet, if I am going to disregard something in the Bible, have I taken the adequate steps to know exactly why?

G.K. Chesterton described a person discovering a fence across a road. He may say, “I don’t see the point of this, clear it away.� Wisdom would say, “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.� Chesterton goes on to say, “Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody.� In this case, that “some person� is God. Apparently, He wants to be called “Father�.


https://bulldogcatholic.org/god-as-he/

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 27 by tam]

No one needs to act in the place of Christ as being the Head of the Church... because Christ is ALIVE, and so acts as Himself as the Head of His Church.

Hmmmm . . And I tell you thatyou are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church,and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.�…

So are you saying that Christ - the Living Christ - is not the Head of the Church?

Quote:
Therefore, a bride does not need another bride. In fact, the relationship fails.


Are you suggesting that the priests are not part of the bride? I do not understand what you are suggesting. Who is the bride that does not need the bride?


I mean... I would agree. The Bride (the Body of Christ) does not need another bride. The Bride (the Body of Christ) needs the Bridegroom: Christ (the Head of the Church).

See biblical passage above. Christ built His Church on Peter and gave His Church authority.
“Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heave�. “He who hears you, hears me�

And please don’t suggest Christ built His Church on Peter’s confession. LOL! That fails by a basic analysis of Scripture and was some new revisionist theory invented.

You did not answer my questions. What you seem to want to be getting into here is an old argument that we have had many times before. Many of the claims you presented about Peter are addressed here:

viewtopic.php?p=876330#876330


My questions on this thread and in this post that you did not answer are these:

Are you suggesting that the priests are not part of the bride? I do not understand what you are suggesting. Who is the bride that does not need the bride?


I am simply asking you to explain your statement here:

Priests are acting in the place of Christ as being head of the Church. Therefore, a bride does not need another bride. In fact, the relationship fails... RR

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


Christ was true God AND true man. So. Yeah it makes sense to consider the male nature of Christ. It is part of who He is.


You ignored this part:

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

I ignored nothing,

You are still ignoring it. No one is suggesting that God not be referred to as a 'he' or as 'Father'; or that Christ not be referred to as the Son. But you are ignoring the fact that Christ is also referred to in the feminine when He is Wisdom. You are also ignoring the fact that men are part of the Bride, and women are part of the kings and priests.


Gender does not matter among the Bride; gender does not matter among the kings and priests - they are all both male and female.




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

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 29 by tam]

So are you saying that Christ - the Living Christ - is not the Head of the Church?

It isn’t an either or. It is an and. Christ AND he who He put in charge of His Church are both the head of the Church. The Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth.

Are you suggesting that the priests are not part of the bride?

The priests are acting in persona christe therefore they, like Christ, are the bridegroom to the Church.

I do not understand what you are suggesting. Who is the bride that does not need the bride?

The Church is the bride. Therefore the Church does not need a bride, she needs a groom.

I am simply asking you to explain your statement here:

Priests are acting in the place of Christ as being head of the Church. Therefore, a bride does not need another bride. In fact, the relationship fails... RR

I just re explained. And the relationship fails because a bride would not have another bride. A bride needs a groom and a groom needs a bride.

You are still ignoring it. No one is suggesting that God not be referred to as a 'he' or as 'Father'; or that Christ not be referred to as the Son. But you are ignoring the fact that Christ is also referred to in the feminine when He is Wisdom. You are also ignoring the fact that men are part of the Bride, and women are part of the kings and priests.


Gender does not matter among the Bride; gender does not matter among the kings and priests - they are all both male and female.

I don’t pretend to be smarter than Our Lord. It is He who uses the pronouns He does. The imagery and symbolism of marriage is applied to Christ and His Church. Christ, the Bridegroom, has sacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be His bride (Ephesians 5:25–27). It is also a good reminder, especially for those “anti-church�ers to say it is impossible for us to love Christ and not love his bride, the Church. It's a package deal.