The Sacrament Of Holy Orders

[pippo buono]

i apologize if my explanation is to brief, but please try and fill in what i miss. In class today my teacher wanted to have an open discussion about the Catholic Church. The discussion quickly went into the role of women in the Church, particularly the priesthood. i made my attempt to defend it by explaining how the sacraments require a certain symbolic significance: the water of baptism washing away our sins, the bread and the wine, etc. i went further to explain that the role of priests is to imitate Christ's life and work in the present day, and that they are a sacramental sign of Him. From this, i tried to explain that this is why priests must be men. The sacramental significance demands it.

However, another student brought up a very good point. He stated that if this is true, then all priests would need to be of the same race as Jesus, that is, a Jew. i thought this was an excellent point and it certainly left a hole in my thinking. Did i argue this poorly when there is a better way or is there a reason why we do not require priests to be of the same race as Christ?

i appreciate any help i can get on the topic, if anything for my own edification. Once again, i'm sorry if my explanation is too vague, but i'm in a rush. Thank you all.

In Him

[reyb]

[indent]As you have said, the ‘significance’ is just ’symbolic’ – thus, you have nothing to worry about. But, if the Sacrament of the Holy Orders is truly from God - binding as it is – and not just by ‘ceremonial rites’ – that is much more you have to think it over. [/indent]

[Mateo el Feo]

Here's a short Encylical by Pope John Paul II:

[b][i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i]: On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone.[/b]

Link: [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_pau...dotalis_en.html[/url]

[pippo buono]

The thing is that i don't think that my classmates will find the explanation in [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i] to be satisfactory. They will probably think to themselves, "Well if the the only reason we don't have women priests is because Jesus never did it, who's to say He would have a problem with it?" Also, the response that one student in my class had today would be just as applicable - Jesus only called Jewish men, so would that mean all priests need to be Jews?

[Mercy me]

Jesus himself reached out not only to Jews but to Gentiles. The woman at the well was Samarian. Certainly, Jesus had women around him all the time yet He did not make any of them apostles. Jesus referred to himself as the shepherd may times but shepharding was a male profession.

If Jesus wished to call women, He had the certainly had the opportunity and yet He did not call them to the priesthood.

[ColinAH]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1416786' date='Nov 9 2007, 07:54 PM']Jesus himself reached out not only to Jews but to Gentiles. The woman at the well was Samarian. Certainly, Jesus had women around him all the time yet He did not make any of them apostles. Jesus referred to himself as the shepherd may times but shepharding was a male profession.

If Jesus wished to call women, He had the certainly had the opportunity and yet He did not call them to the priesthood.[/quote]


1. The Apostales were men

2. Men and woman naturally have differn't roles, I am not made that I cannot have baby.

3. If they use the "it was the male dominated culture" say - Jesus was not concerned about cultural limitaions, he ate with tax collectors

4. Jesus was male

5. Jesus was a Jew, but read St. Paul's letters

[theophane]

Also, you could point out that the Church's understanding of the sacraments comes from the deposit of faith, which contains all that the apostles understood and passed on (you could word that part better). The Apostles, as you know, ordained only men to the priesthood, but also ordained non-jews (Timothy, for instance, who was half-greek).

[Hirsap]

I think questions like these can be resolved easily when one understands the authority of the Church, i.e.: the Magisterium. The Church is the voice of God.

I'm assuming those challenging this belief at least accept Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I, i.e.: the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra. And that formal definitions of belief by the Church (e.g.: at Councils) are infallible. It's true I think that this belief has not been defined in this manner; but nevertheless, one knows it is true simply because the Church has [i]always[/i] and [i]universally[/i] taught this truth - hence infallible in light of the Ordinary Magisterium (I hope I am using the correct term here)

Edited November 13, 2007 by Hirsap

[Dismas]

This is not a matter of whether or not a woman can hold up a plate and a cup above her head and say a few words. That is not the point.

The Catholic Church believes in God, who created all things. Whether this was in a matter of days or a slow, subtle process flowing through billions of year is a matter of personal judgment. Regardless, God created all things, and they are good.

From our observations of the natural world, and even within the realm of science, we Catholics notice that God attends to even the smallest of details with individual care, even on a quantum scale.

With this in mind, the Catholic Church contends that the whole of creation is for the sake of humanity.

Surely then, it is sensible that every detail of creation is of great significance to God. Even better, every detail concerning the human race, from hair to appendix, has significance and meaning.

I contend, on behalf of the Church, that if God so desired, mankind could easily have been formed in a way that does not readily distinguish gender or gender roles. Had God wanted as we modern Westerners so desire, that man and woman be indistinguishable, is it not within His power and benign providence to make our race as hermaphrodites. There is a wide range of choices that God could have allowed us to be. Autogamy, Allogamy, Parthenogenesis, etc. are all viable means by which God has created other living creatures, and had the power to do so with humanity.

Our sex and sexuality is an integral understanding of the Faith, and a powerful means to unveil the deep things of God and His relationship with us. God made man and woman alike in dignity, yet not identical in form or vocation. Man is complimentary to the dignity of woman, and woman to man. Together, man and woman are fruitful, and together man and woman continue onward in time by producing the future generations.

Quite simply, God desires to be known in the masculine. This continues in that Jesus is made in the masculine form. If God desired, could not His omnipotence tear the whole of reality's fabric apart? Surely then, God was not limited in sending His Messiah to humanity out of fear of their chauvinism. God the Father and God the Son are known and had desired to be known in the masculine. In that way, the people of God, first the Jews and now the Christians, relate to God in the feminine manner.

Jesus, being God, could easily have become self-incarnate. Yet it is the will of Jesus to reveal Himself to us in the nature that He founded, by being born of a woman. Yes, for all the raging against the supposed chauvinism of the Catholic Church, it is rather the Church which honors just one person, one woman, against the whole of the human race as mankind's single and solitary boast. Of all humanity, man and woman alike, Mary surpasses in the order of grace perfectly above us, for the sake of her Son. It is a woman, who is the one perfect specimen of the human person. It is Mary who received most perfectly the call to receive God, and it is Mary who all humanity is called to imitate in relation to God.

Now what is a priest? The role of a priest is to be as Jesus before the Church, who is plainly written as the Bride of Christ. As such, it is the priest's role to minister to the Church on behalf of Jesus. Indeed, the Eucharist that is celebrated is both a wedding feast, and the consummation of that wedding. The bride is the Church, and the priest stands in on behalf of Jesus who is the groom. Together, bride and groom share an intimacy greater than that of the sexual embrace between a loving husband and a loving wife, and naturally new life is generated from that union. Yes, every Eucharist is an act expecting the Church to bear children in the order of grace.

Therefore, we now only begin to understand the sacramental nature of the priesthood which demands a male priesthood. So too, we now understand why Mary, who was most intimate and perfect in the eyes of Jesus, was not named an Apostle, though her honor exceeds them all.

Lastly, it is no small coincidence that the Church is disgusted by the desire of women to become priestesses, for the first and foremost of their reasons has been for the wielding of ecclesiastic power. No man who seeks the priesthood is fit to be ordained if his desire is power or honor or money, and so no feminist would be given the opportunity. So too, the duties of a priest are servile in nature, and often grueling in practice to a degree that the Church would be offended to subject the higher creature to.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Dismas

[reyb]

[indent]The question at hand will yield to issues on woman’s ordination. The question really is ….Is there any male priest who can imitate Jesus Christ? Therefore, why female is not allowed to take part in the Sacrament of Holy Order? This female’s argument has been ignored for too long. If a woman who wants to become a priest and the Catholic Church did not allow it – then, it is still okay provided that there is an acceptable explanation. Otherwise, it is sign of unreasonable belief. [/indent]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='pippo buono' post='1416720' date='Nov 9 2007, 05:54 PM']The thing is that i don't think that my classmates will find the explanation in [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i] to be satisfactory. They will probably think to themselves, "Well if the the only reason we don't have women priests is because Jesus never did it, who's to say He would have a problem with it?" Also, the response that one student in my class had today would be just as applicable - Jesus only called Jewish men, so would that mean all priests need to be Jews?[/quote]
Where did jesus call just jewish men?

[LouisvilleFan]

To me, opening the priesthood to all men regardless of race represents the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy that all nations would know salvation through Israel. Under the Old Covenant, only Levites were priests; under the New Covenant, all men can be priests.

The mistake our culture makes is correlating priesthood with a position of leadership, like being a CEO, public speaker, or even a pastor. A priest is not the Catholic equivalent of a Protestant pastor. It's a role that holds no equivalent due to its sacramental nature. Priests are icons of Christ who happen to serve in positions as pastors, speakers, executives, etc. There is nothing to be gained in the direction of womens' liberation or equality by pushing for womens' ordination. Everything a priest does outside of his sacramental responsibilities can be done by women too.

Of course, anyone who thinks women's ordination is a possibility must question why Mary was never ordained. If anyone sacrificed their entire life in a very priest-like role, it was Mary.

[Aloysius]

Jesus ordained only twelve men, they were Hebrew.

However, the difference between men and woman is an inherent reality; the difference between races is nothing more than cultural construct and a few minor characteristic differences.

You'd have to either have androgynous beliefs about men and women or be a racist to follow the line of thinking which equates Jesus' choice of men instead of women with Jesus' choice of Jews instead of gentiles.

Besides, those very same twelve Jews who were ordained by Jesus ordained gentile MEN. The mind of Jesus is found in the mind of His Apostles which He instructed, as He said "he who hears you, hears me; he who rejects you, rejects me"

I have a feeling it comes out of a very androgynous anthropology rather than a racist belief; no more difference between men and women than between jew and gentile, right? wrong; there is a big difference; the place we are equal is in dignity before God and united to Christ, but in our natures and in our roles, we are fundamentally different.

[ardent1]

Could we also apply the Theology of the Body here and remember that manhood is meant to represent Christ whereas woman does the Church?

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1418584' date='Nov 13 2007, 02:13 AM']Lastly, it is no small coincidence that the Church is disgusted by the desire of women to become priestesses, for the first and foremost of their reasons has been for the wielding of ecclesiastic power. No man who seeks the priesthood is fit to be ordained if his desire is power or honor or money, and so no feminist would be given the opportunity. So too, the duties of a priest are servile in nature, and often grueling in practice to a degree that the Church would be offended to subject the higher creature to.[/quote]
Whoa, let's cool our jets. I do not believe that the Church expresses disgust at a particular woman's desire to be a priest. In fact, Holy Church declared St. Therese of Lisieux to be a doctor of the Church, and she expressed a deep desire to be a priest.

Don't get me wrong - women in the priesthood is not a possibility, now or ever. However, I would think that the [i]desire [/i]to be a priest would be honorable.