Same here! I've been asked if I'm offended by not being able to become a priest, I say no. I'm not sure why I would be offended that God isn't calling me to the particular sacrifices priesthood demands? Also if my parish were to tell all the women to stop helping since they aren't a priest, oh boy I think it would collapse in a few weeks haha
As a male, I agree with all of you. Imagine women became a priest during Roman Era, she must traveling a lot for liturgical service. Women are vulnerable than man, they will be exposed all kind of danger. So man is practically more suitable to do priestly job at that time. Man can travels alone in wilderness, and physcially more strong.
As someone who struggles a bit with this area of Church teaching, I can definitely say that this is one of the better deep-dives on this topic. Thanks!
Jesus' sacrifice is for His bride, the Church. Analogue to that is a mans sacrifice for his bride. If the bride brings the sacrifice for herself, you get the ultimate symbol of self adoration; i.e. pride.
@@graysonguinn1943it’s literally true. So many of these people who promote women’s ordination say that it’s unjust for men to hold all the “power”. They’ve literally made the argument about power and they hate that women can’t have that “power”
How many parishes are actually run by a female parish administrator today? There is a sense in which they already have a great deal of power and/or authority.
@@graysonguinn1943 not all of them think of ordination as a form of power, that's true... But too many do it. During an assembly at my local parish, where I serve as a council member, there was a dispute on this issue when a few women protested the fact that women are not allowed to "positions of power". There was no argument we could use to change their view that priests are like political authorities inside the Church and that women would be better administrators, changing the rules to adapt the Church to modern society (abortion and divorce being the first changes).
I had a colleague who always called God "her." I kept saying, Jesus called Him Father. It didn't seem to matter to her. She was a Baptist preacher. Sad, sad.
Yes she was projecting. God does not have a sex because God is spirit. However God is pretty much identified as a man because we use the word father and the name God gave for himself is masculine not feminine.
The idea that Jesus was somehow constrained by 1st century Jewish social norms and that's why he didn't breath on women during Pentecost is absurd. Jesus elevated women by allowing two women to be His first witnesses to the resurrection. So he obviously didn't give a hoot about customs, and this should be clear based on His behavior throughout his entire Earthly ministry. He did care about the Law however, so let me clarify.
Note, that this is the same Jesus that said "I don't care how hard you think it'd be, you can't divorce your wife for any reason" and "You have no life in you unless you eat my flesh."
Pope Francis has confirmed women will never be priests in his 60 minutes interview. He has also added an automatic excommunication to canon law should someone try. We form our conscience from the church, not ourselves.
It really is quite exhausting sometimes trying to explain that women can’t be ordained into the priesthood and people look at you like you just said women have no place nor public acts of service in the Church. Just because they can’t act in persona Christi doesn’t mean there’s *nothing* for them to do. Their roles just happen in a different capacity. I know my priests over the years have relied a lot on the ladies of the parish to help them keep things organized and running. Our administrative team keeps records and appointments organized, there’s volunteers for church clean up and event hosting, dedicated prayer groups throughout the week, volunteers and representatives for the city community, etc. When people, no matter if they’re a guy or gal, give their time, talent, and resources for the church, it allows the priest to do his job much more easily and everyone ends up content in the end. Everyone has a place in the Church and trying to strong arm one’s way into a position they cannot be in doesn’t make things better. Just exhausting for those who have to keep telling them “stop it!”
As a Protestant, yes to this; my synod has been suffering this push 40years, still hasn't got a large majority support and the rest of the ministries are suffering because of it.
We shouldn't sleep on the evidence of the OT priesthood either. The idea that Jesus would have been constrained by Jewish customs because OT priests were only men is really weird because God made those laws too! The Levitical priesthood being all male isn't some accidental Pharisaical practice that developed over the years like washing your hands before eating, it's literally explicitly commanded by God. The same person who said "before Moses was, I AM" gave both sets of laws not only has authority over both sets, but absolutely did not need to set things up that way in the first place if it was going to be a problem for Himself later on.
For my part, I'm fine with people bringing it up, because the more questions the Church receives, the more she can answer them, add explanations, and make the teaching deeper. Tradition is only as rich as it is because it is the result of thousands of years of asking questions, debating, and getting answers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. One might say that the mark of the true Church is to find the one where people do the most debating. If we truly believe that the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church, then we shouldn't feel threatened by people who struggle with this teaching, but rather praise God for the chance to see Tradition develop before our eyes.
@@glennlanham6309 It’s an advisory board and Pope Francis will not allow women ordination. It isn’t scary at all. He said “no” in the 60 minutes interview.
@@CathNcamo2 I don’t agree. But in any case, as a woman, I wish the feminists who push this would just stop. It’s not a DEI issue. All it comes across to me as being is some silly power play. Just stop it. It’s annoying, & it just shows an openness for rebellion. It’s a kingdom - not a democracy, & if you continue on in this rebellion, you’re gonna have answer to the King one day - if - as the example of Nadab & Elihu showed - the earth doesn’t swallow you up over this…
Reading some of these comments, I think it might be a good idea to do an episode on ministerial versus universal priesthood. You've touched on it on other episodes, but I think an episode dedicated to this topic and also the distinction between priests and bishops would be fruitful.
As a protestant, I have been thining about that a lot, about God being a Father and not Mother, and I have struggled with understanding why and to what extent. Your video has helped me understand something I had never heard before, about the otherness of God as opposed to God being part of creation. Thank you very much. God has led me to your channel. He will bless you for this.
"There is only one Church which is the only Church with the ‘fullness’ of Truth. Stay Catholic my friends." Are you familiar with John 8:31, where Jesus said: "If you obey my teaching, you are really my disciples"? So, if the Catholic Church is that "only Church," where in your Bible did Jesus teach Catholics to believe that... 1. inanimate objects such as statures and relics can be worshiped? 2. his mother Mary was immaculately conceived? 3. "we worship one God in trinity"? 4. the Father, Son, and holy spirit make up the same "One Incomprehensible"? 5. Mary can be prayed to?
@@cbooth151 Jesus gave us a Church, not a Bible. The Church via the Holy Spirit, gave us the Bible. So, tell me. Where in the Bible does it say everything must be in the Bible? Tell me, what did Christians do for the first 20-30 years, after the resurrection, before any books of the New Testament were even written? 2 Thessalonians 2: 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by 'word of mouth' or by letter. Also, You understand the word 'pray' also means to ask, right? Like a lawyer might 'pray' or 'ask' the court rules in his clients favor. Catholics 'ask' (pray) Mary to pray for us. Catholics DO NOT worship Mary. Only 'uninformed' protestants think Catholics worship Mary. God Bless You
@@johns1834 "Jesus gave us a Church, not a Bible. The Church via the Holy Spirit, gave us the Bible." If the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, where in the Bible does it say or imply that... 1. statues and relics can be worshiped? 2. unmarried priests must be bound to celibacy? 3. the Father, Son, and holy spirit make up "One Incomprehensible"? 4. Mary could be worshiped? 5. the Godhead is triune? 6. the prayers of the Rosary can be recited? 7. Mary was immaculately conceived? 8. Peter was the first pope? 9. "we worship one God in trinity"? 10. the Father, Son, and holy spirit are one in nature, essence, and substance? 11. "the Cross of Christ" and the "Crown of Thorns" can be worshiped? 12. the Father, Son, and holy spirit make up the same "One Lord"? 13. the holy spirit is a person? 14. Jesus' birthday was celebrated one December 25th? 15. meat was not to be consumed on Fridays or during Lent? 16. the Father, Son, and holy spirit are co-equal in glory? 17. homosexuals are "children of God"? 18. novenas could be recited? 19. babies could be baptized? 20. priests could be addressed as 'Father'? 21. Mary was a perpetual virgin? 22. the Father, Son, and holy spirit are co-eternal in majesty? 23. Jesus was "true God from true God"? 24. Mary "has a separate and absolutely super-eminent rank among the saints"? 25. purgatory is real? 26. Mary could be prayed to? So, if the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, why are so many Catholic beliefs not found there?
My mother once told me they reason why women could never receive the priesthood is because God gave men the priesthood to make them more equal with women, since women could create life 😅
I fully agree with her theology. Gender equality has gone wrong over the years, becoming gender denial. But we are different. As a man, I will never be allowed to give birth to a child. I don't blame God for that. I don't envy women, I'm just happy for them. Women should do the same.
Makes no sense, men and women are equal because both are made in the image of God. The Lord has different roles for men and women and this is why women cannot be ordained because they have a different purpose.
8:17 This is a great point that I think keeps getting lost by a lot of people: the Church as a familial relationship. The familial language is all over the place from week 1. The destruction of the family in our culture is also seen in the destruction of the perception of the Church as a fundamentally familial relationship.
Thank you for this. I’m a woman, and I appreciate the work of male priests and female nuns. Both make important contributions to the Church. I would not want female priests.
Here's my very modest argument. You can't argue for women's ordination alone. If you want to do that, you at the very least have to jettison a lot of the Church's teachings on sexuality. A little more formally, the argument would go something like this: To say with confidence the Church can ordain women, you must say that there is never any sacramentally relevant distinction between men and women. But we already know of at least one sacramentally relevant distinction between men and women because of the sacrament of marriage. If there were no sacramentally relevant distinction between men and women for the purposes of marriage, then the Church's designation that marriage must be between one man and one woman is unintelligible. Because of this, it is plausible that there is a sacramentally relevant distinction for the purposes of the other vocational sacrament, so we cannot say with confidence that the Church should be able to ordain women. I think this argument is useful in two ways. First, it clearly frames where the burden of proof it, and that's the side arguing for the change. They have a high bar that they need to clear to argue for a change in this kind of thing (even pretending Ordinato Sacredotalis doesn't exist). And second, it forces the interlocutor to be honest and bite the bullet about what they're really arguing for. It's no surprise that women's ordination always goes hand in hand with many other opinions related to how the Church ought to be about sex, but to admit that would give the game away.
Sheesh, if you are a woman who wants to be ordained, just become a Protestant. Plenty of choices there. Why insist on changing holy tradition...and the Bible? Why would you even want to be part of a church that disagrees with your theology?
@@RabidLeech1 what is a non-heretical Protestant denomination? Seems like an oxymoron. A Protestant church is one that was established, or broke away from, the true Catholic Church over a matter of doctrine.
Because the very existence of virtue is condemnation on vice. The fact that there is even one denomination which rejects "female pastors" is damnation on all the others. It calls them out as unclean simply by existing.
You've barely touched on the meaning and purpose of priesthood. A priest is someone who offers sacrifices to god(s). A Catholic priest is not just a prayer leader, but he works "in persona Christi", and when he offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice, it's actually Jesus Christ offering Himself to the Father - the same offering that He made on Maudy Thursday through Good Friday. Jesus is a man, and so the priest has to be a man too, so that he may represent Christ. If Jesus is the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, then all Catholic priests are to be like him.
My armchair theologian analysis of Pope Francis' comment was not so much that women can't become ordained within a generation or two, but that it's unfitting for a little girl in doctrinal infancy to already begin imagining herself becoming a priestess. That is, she should learn the faith as it is before becoming an activist
@@WayneDrake-uk1gg He was asked of a little girl will ever grow up to be a priest. He said “no”. That means forever, a girl will never grow to be a priest. Ever. They were not talking about imagination. Question: “… you have many young boys and girls that will come here at the end of next month for World Children’s Day and I’m curious for a little girl growing up Catholic today, will she ever have the opportunity to be a deacon and participate as a clergy member in the church…”? Before he answered, he noted he had said no to women being priests before. It goes on, “… is that something you open to if it is deacons with holy orders..?” “If it is deacons with holy orders, no” This means women will never be ordained even to the lowest order, deacons. Any female deacon would be in the realm of nuns, not “clergy” (deacon, priest, bishop).
@@paulmualdeave5063 yes, very good, thank you for posting that. Apparently I had misremembered the question Just enough to misinterpret the meaning. But it seems you are indeed correct
Wooooow Mr. Joe 🤯this is so wonderful I finally get it! Here at the end you just completely nailed it! It makes so much sence! Here is the reall reason! God is creator not creature!!!
Also, the masculine gives to the feminine. The feminine receives from the masculine. That's also why God is referred to as He. He gives, and the only reason we have anything at all is because He gave it to us, and we received it from Him
A Woman was already given the honour of bringing God into the world as a Human, thereby elevating all other women in the process. Now, men are given the honour of bringing God into the world again as the Bread of Life
Women were used in unique and powerful ways all throughout Scripture, but that doesn't mean we need to push the boundaries in every area of the Church. Everyone has a unique role to fill, while respecting the boundaries God set up.
How do you handle the objection that Phoebe is referred to as a deacon (in at least some translations of Romans 16:1)? In the recent uproar over Pope Francis saying no to ordaining women as deacons, she's one of the people used as a supporting argument. (Big fan of your work, Joe. I'm getting ready to begin OCIA this September, and your book about the early church had quite an impact back at the start of my process.)
I'm not Joe, but speaking from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, technically Phoebe was a deaconess, not a deacon. They were separate offices. Our understanding is that deaconesses were most likely the "hands" of the priest for those things and places where it was not proper for him to act - for example, baptizing women during the period where the candidate was baptized naked. The priest would do everything up to the actual immersion, then the men cleared out, the women would be immersed by the deaconess, and once the newly baptized women were robed the priest would return for the rest of the sacramental actions. Today, however, there is no priestly (or "deaconly") function where it would be so improper for a man to interact with a woman that way, that a woman is required to assist.
I’m glad you explored possible reasons for the requirement. Lately I’ve been encountering a lot of strident separation of the sacramental requirement from the common reasons proposed for it (like that Christian priesthood is inherently masculine in character). I think this comes from people willing to concede to the feminist critiques of these arguments but not to breaking with the Church, so they insist on Jesus’s choice as the only doctrinal reason and all speculation about the reasons for that choice as fallible and failing theology. The problem here, besides its reductionism not being how we Catholics approach any other subject, is it makes Jesus’ choice seem arbitrary and the Church seem bound to an inexplicable anachronism.
simple at the moment of transubstantiation when the Host becomes the Body of Christ the Padre is in persona Christi. A woman CANNOT be in persona Christi, it's that simple.
People who argue that woman should be priests are not interested in serving G-D's will, but their own. Become a nun if you wish to serve, whats the problem? Desire, ego and ambition is your disposition, rather than a desire to respond to a call to service, as G-D wills it. Be like the blessed Mother Mary!
I love this answer, and fully agree with it. Though, I can hear their rebuttal: Aren’t men just reserving such things - ambition, ego, desire - for themselves, then? I don’t think tradition goes deep enough. I think there is a deep reason that men tended to historically take these sorts of leadership and representative roles, and why God is communicated as “He” rather than “She,” and why He became male and not female.
Imagine women became a priest during Roman Era, she must traveling a lot for liturgical service. Women are vulnerable than man, they will be exposed all kind of danger. So man is practically more suitable to do priestly job at that time. Man can travels alone in wilderness, and physcially more strong. Priest and apostles like St. Peter and Paul traveling from Middle East to Rome, while another priest and apostle, St. Thomas traveling from Middle East to India to preach the gospel. So its not practical for women to be a priest at that time.
A priest is a father. A nun is a mother. A man can also be brother just like a woman can be sister. The true change is to give more prominence to mothers in the Church. Do you guys know we have Mother Abbess in the Church? That's what we should put more emphasis on.
I am a protestant. I see ordaining a female elder as wrong because a woman does not meet the criteria laid out for elders in 1 Timothy 3 or in Titus. I do think that a woman can meet the criteria for a Deacon in that same chapter. That is what a Deacon was in the 1st century. It was a service role. I do think the Deacon role in the Roman Catholic church is closer to that of an elder and so I don't think it would be appropriate to have a woman in that role. I don't really feel the need to justify why women can't be elders beyond the inspired word of God says they don't meet the criteria.
Whether you see the need or not is kinda irrelevant. Dozens of denominations have claimed to hold true to scripture, yet they have gone astray in this matter. Scripture itself has never taken out the wooden spoon and given them a piece of it's mind for this, and that is why we need more than only scripture
Jesus commanded his priests to wash the feet of the disciples. This is a metaphor for giving service. To suggest that there are special roles for women is to invite them to carry out this sacerdotal work. I haven't heard people say that this is unsutable for women and that men only should engage in this service. The arguments set out in this broadcast are similar to the arguments used in the early church to prohibit women from administering baptism. That Jesus was a man That He didn't commission women to baptise That the Apostles didn't allow it That Mary didn't baptise That it was the unchanged tradition of the church That the church couldn't possibly allow it and yet with the stroke of a Papal pen Pope Urban ll in the year 1096 allowed women to administer baptism eg. to a dying infant. From that year until today a woman can validly baptise using the prescribed form " I baptise". She can say in the name of the Father ( she can represent the Father ) and of the Son ( she can represent the Son ). The magisterium doesn't have any difficulty with that. Her femininity isn't an obstacle I know Anglicans are confused and frustrated. Catholics differ from them in their beliefs in many ways and do not refer to them for guidance.
The Church is "the bride of Christ," the sanctuary is the bed chamber (masculine and feminine join), and the tabernacle is the womb that holds the living bread i.e. Jesus. Because a woman cannot marry the bride and create life in the womb, the sanctuary is not a place for women or altar girls.
two things then a monologue 1. the code of canon law currently does not specify only men, and as this is within the Church's authority it is permitted 2. most of the time that Extraordinary Ministers are used, it is abuse anyway as definitionally every day cannot be "extraordinary circumstances" as the church requires for their use, and often the priest is just lazy so is it unlawful, currently no, but is it prudent? one of the ways st JPII argues for a male only priesthood was the imagery of the mass it is the wedding feast with Christ presiding, and communion is the consummation of our marriage to Christ as such the minister in persona christi must symbolize Christ in a real manner(male) but as he also discusses its relation to the reception of communion as the consummation it follows that this should apply to any minister distributing communion as well
A whole video on something so simple. Matter, Form and Intention. Women are wrong matter and the Intention would also be wrong. Christ hever intended to make women priests.
6:46 Agree. I think is way more radical to hold the Trinity and the Eucharist than the female priesthood. Besides, they are almost portraying Jesus as a coward, when he instead was ready to be left alone if his disciples did not believe in the Eucharist or to die if he was asked if he was the Son of God.
While the purpose of Altar Servers was for the formation to the priesthood, there is no reason why it could not also be used for the formation of women religious.
I'm new to the church, so I'm sure I'm not understanding this distinction between preaching and the priesthood. Plus, coming from a protestant background I may be conflating preaching with the priesthood. But, I have been reading about the the saints from the book The Golden Legends, and both Saints Martha and Mary Magdalene were said to be preaching. Is this something different?
Priesthood is not about preaching (although they must preach too). They are there to act "in persona Christi" or "In the person of Christ" as Jesus in the Mass. Thus Jesus is here in the flesh sacrificing Jesus in the flesh to God the Father in the Mass. That is one of the main differences between the Catholic Church and (most) Protestants. It also explains why we no longer have Jewish Temple sacrifice because it was replaced with Jesus' sacrifice.
To my understanding, anyone who is a disciple of Christ can preach, because it's evangelizing. Any of these youtubers are preaching lol but they certainly aren't priests.
Need to make sure we are on the same understanding of preaching. If preaching = homilies then only an ordained minister can do that. Same with proclaiming the Gospel at Mass. If preaching is defined more broadly as teaching the kingdom of God and evangelizing then any Baptized believer can do that as baptism consecrates all believers as priests, prophets, and kings.
@@ereinei I honestly have no idea. According to the accounts about those particular saints it said they were preaching about Jesus to the people in Marseille. I got the impression it was in a town square. There were no established churches in France at the time that they were "preaching". It also mentions in the account that later Saint Maximin was ordained Bishop of Aix.
Coming from a Protestant background, you were probably told that women can't preach because they're not pastors and St. Paul said they weren't to teach in church. But people, especially Protestants, often misunderstand Paul's epistles. The reason why he said that women weren't to teach and were to be quiet in the particular church he was writing to is because they were being loud and disorderly and setting themselves up as teachers in the middle of the service. Paul's solution to this was to tell the church he was addressing that the women were to be quiet and ask questions at home, not during the service. The Mass is meant to be reverent and orderly, not a free for all gathering where people socialize with one another like in many evangelical churches. That doesn't mean that women can't teach the faith or preach the gospel, to say otherwise is to extrapolate Paul's writings and create a prohibition where none existed.
Well, for whatever reason Francis is keeping the question open and at the same time is calling for a "new theology" because apparently according to him the perennial theology that's already been affirmed for 2 thousand years is insufficient.
People wanting to change the church are doing it because they want not because God wants them to. It’s pride that guides them. HE chose men as His apostles, women have a different role.
As far as I'm aware, the Church has always acknowledged female Saints and their importance in the Church, even recognising some as Doctors of the Church. As Joe mentioned in this video, we venerate the Blessed Mother, to an extent that makes our protestant brethren uncomfortable, putting it mildly! It seems clear to me, then, that whatever reason the Church has for not allowing female priests, it can't be sexism.
Ordaining women to act in persona Christi would be totally nonsensical. Imagine that Christ had been embodied as a woman and had given birth to a baby, and that this baby became a sacrificial offering and that this was re-enacted during a 'mass'. And then imagine that men wanted to be ordained to act in persona Christi in order to reenact the act of giving birth to the body and blood of that sacrificial child (in the form of a piece of bread) which we would all believe to be the real body and blood of Christ's child. Do you think women and men (normal and not trans ideologized men and women) might find it somewhat odd? Ordaining women would be as completely mental as ordaining men to actually give birth at every mass.
agreed - father's and mother's both create but father's do it outside of themselves, and are (in historical stereotypical terms), the initiator. Mother's create inside themselves and (again in those terms - but these were the context of revelation) are the receptive agent. And in our religion the transcendant supercedes the immanent as ultimately God is beyond all that exists.
There’s not one place in the old and New Testament that says or was allowed to have female priests or bishops,besides that there not one place in the New Testament that reveals any of the holy women including Mother Mary that they were teaching anyone but rather only ministered to Jesus and the apostles with food clothing and whatever other types of material support that they could do.But I must say this that if any of the holy women or Mother Mary spoke of anything concerning Jesus teachings or what the apostles had taught they were only repeating what they have been taught and learned like the sheep of the Catholic Church only repeat what we are taught
Really interesting video. The only thing I'll say is as an Anglican this "other religion" which the Church of England (and I guess many other churches in the Anglican Communion) is warping into did not start with female ordination, but rather has been going on for quite some time now.
Priests act in “Persona Christi”, or in the person of Christ as the incarnation of God. The “Church” is His Bride. A bride is traditionally a female. Can a female priest marry the Bride (female), his Church? This hasn’t been brought up yet. Can a man marry a man, or a female marry a female in the eyes of God? I think we all know the answer.
Great vid Joe. If you have the time, could you ever address full preterism? It was an in-road to a Catholicism for me, but not necessarily fully compatible. While some converts from Protestantism wrestle with Mariology as they grow in the faith, I wrestle with eschatology! A number of folks have reached out to me in response to my explorations of this subject - full preterists who are on the edge of conversion to Catholicism; Catholics who are trying to understand eschatology better, etc. I address the subject here, would love if you would respond to some of the questions etc: ua-cam.com/video/YjZ6W4NyOAs/v-deo.htmlsi=m4bhMavzEDKvTVXm
1. "By contrast, the image of the Father was and is apt for expressing the otherness of the Creator and creature and the sovereignty of His creative act. Only by excluding the mother-deities could the Old Testament bring its image of God, the pure transcendence of God, to maturity." (Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 1) Response: Are you sure this isn't a quotation from Dr. James White, the Reformed Baptist? If he didn't write it, at least it would tantalize him with some Calvinist sounding catnip, i.e., 'sovereignty'. 2. To what can I compare Pope John Paul II's vehemence in Ordinatio Sacerdotis 4 when he writes: "I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful"? Only this: "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'" (Genesis 2:15-17, KJV) 3. And if the King James Bible was good enough for Moses, then that's good enough for me.
The Catholic Church headed by Jesus is the One, True, Apostolic Faith which supports the Tradition of Faith handed down through the true lineage of popes. It is not compromised to please certain dissident groups. It does not support abortion, birth control, women priests or homosexuality. It is a faith which accepts the seven sacraments wholeheartedly, and firmly believes in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. It is loyal to the Pope. The church of compromise accepts only certain points of truth and compromises other points. They may choose names like the ‘New American Catholic Church’ or ‘FutureChurch’ or others. Compromise of the truth is from Satan-always. The problem lies in the fact that the dissident ‘catholics’ do not leave the Church; instead, they continue to call themselves ‘Catholic’ and try to change the truth from within.
All believers in Christ are priests, according to Peter. “…you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ… …But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” 1 Peter 2:5,9
"and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. ..." Exodus 19:6 and yet God still made the Levitical Priesthood male only in the Old Testament. This verse from 1 Peter does not say anything about the Levitical Priesthood, it is echoing Exodus 19:6 which does not apply to the Levitical Priesthood. There are 3 levels of Priests: Highpriest who is only Jesus now; Ministerial/Levitical priests which is what we call Priests; and universal priests which is what we call Christians. 1 Peter 2:5,9 and Exodus 19:6 are both about universal priests/Christians. Korah and his followers got literally consumed by the earth because they conflated universal priests with Levitical priests, Numbers 16; Jude 1:11.
@@Maranatha99 ? Elder in greek is Presbyteros which is where we get the word Priest from. In the tribe of Levi, men that were not Priests were Servants of the Temple. Deacon just means servant. Elders and Deacons were definitely Ministerial priests.
Only ordained priests can offer physical sacrifices, instead of merely spiritual ones. At the mass, the Priest says "Pray my brethren that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the Almighty Father". Our Sacrifices are spiritual, but the Priest's is Jesus's real body, blood, soul, and divinity.
To summarize Archbishop Fulton Sheen: "The Word of God is the seed. It is the purpose of Man to plant seeds, that's why women have never been ordained."
Occam's Razor- Judaism didn't allow female rabbis, so the Apostles didn't allow female priests out of tradition for that patriarchal system. Nothing to do with Jesus, just those men and their upbringing. Everything is just excuse-making for those men and their decision.
Them: “Jesus couldn’t disrespect the norms of his time, and especially the priesthood.” “…You brood of vipers!…” - Jesus, to the Pharisees (teachers) “You are making [the temple] a den of robers!” - Jesus, to the sadducees (priests) “You brood of vipers!…” - John the Baptist, to both the Pharisees and Sadducees. Them: “But, I just mean like he couldn’t change the structure of the priesthood. Him saying they are a brood of vipers is more about morals, not a critique of the system!” Us: “yeah, we agree. He did not want to change the system! Therefore, it is not changed… even today” Them: “But wait! No! You can’t twist our words like that! We know he was too scared to critique social things, that was the roadblock! This is just a fact, but today we are socially okay with it, so we can! That’s our argument. Stop trying to deny this fact.” Us: “Please refer to the above quotes. …is it really a social thing…?”
Dearest brother...I do love your teaching style and your videos! You are my favorite teacher at Catholic Answers, and I like you all. Is it impossible for the men of the feminine Church, which is made up of more women than men, to ordain women as Priests? Perhaps. Many things are impossible with men. However, as our Lord declared, nothing is impossible with God! In the 1st century, remember that that ancient pagan Greek word for woman literally means "walking womb". That Jesus would appear first to women was outrageous! Women weren't even allowed to give testimony in a court of law! Why would Jesus do such a thing if He wanted people to believe He had risen from the dead? Please consider that the first Apostle and Priest was not male at all! The Blessed Mother, in the moment of her great Fiat, was the first to consecrate the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus to the whole world. The male Apostles came after her, and none of them can compare to her...and only women can seek to emulate her. The God who ordained Our Lady both Apostle and Priest followed His own precedent. He is the God of Judge Deborah, that "Woman of Fire" ("wife of Lappidoth" in verse 4 is a mistranslation, as she was likely a consecrated virgin as well as an anointed Judge and Prophet). She was the leader of Israel and arguably the greatest of all the Judges (see Judges Chapters 4 & 5). She served God with her great mind and knowledge of His law! We also know that women, such as Phoebe, were ordained Deacons in the earliest days of the Church. There are records of women Deacons who were less well known very early in the Church...so the exclusion of women came later, when the men of the Church started arguing about whether women only possessed 1/3 of a soul. It came about when the men of the Church argued that "women are defective men". You know this isn't true! Priscilla discipled both Apollos and St. Paul, both of whom were already experts of Sacred Scripture. I do not think the Magisterium has truly and deeply considered the words of St. Paul, or fully developed it in its obviously eternal doctrinal importance: "...there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28). This is explicit...both men and women can stand "in persona Christi". So, respectfully, the members of the Church are unsexed in Christ, for His Spirit dwells in each of us the same. In fact, Jesus made it clear that gender as we know it will be abolished at the time of Resurrection, making marriage obsolete. (Matt. 22:29). Go back and study Genesis...two genders was not even God's first choice for humanity. He only took the woman out of man because the man was not satisfied with only his relationship with God and the animals given for companionship. (Gen. 2:20). It was arguably that dissatisfaction that may have led to original sin.
I have no idea who you have been listening to, Darla, but you would do well to make significant changes in the sources which form your thought. The deprecatory associations that you've indicated in your comment reveal some important distortions in your thought. You would do better to form your thought with magisterial teaching, unless you explicitly and consciously reject Catholic doctrine of infallibility. If that is the case, then you are not Catholic; instead happening to agree with particular doctrines. If on the other hand you are Catholic, then you hold firmly and definitively that the Church has no competence to ordain women to the order of the priesthood in any of its three degrees. There are plenty of Protestant denominations which would be happy to receive you, and many which might be happy to ordain you, but a Catholic who argues for the ordination of women is effectively a traitor. Such is the force of definitive doctrinal declarations.
Only Catholic men can become priests is a Catholic Church dogma. Catholic Dogmas can never be change. Only Catholic disciplines can be change by the Church.
@@MegaRh123 If such teaching lower than dogma is not part of Sacred Tradition, such as when taught only by a few or only in a particular context or only for a time. Otherwise, though not dogmatically defined, it becomes part of the infallible ordinary magisterium and cannot be changed, such as when Paul VI renewed the Church's perennial teaching on artificial contraceptives.
And experienced a schism in response. But Anglicans have little clarity of doctrine on many matters. It is also arguable that the orthodox churches are closer to Catholic in their theology than Anglicans are.
Please don't misunderstand me, I assent to the Magisterium on this issue wholeheartedly, but personally, Lewis' argument really disturbs me. For one, I think there are other far more compelling explanations for why there is a hefty amount of fatherhood language for God especially in the NT (the fact of Jesus already having a mother is a big one for starters), I don't actually think having women priests necessarily leads to a justification of saying "Our Mother" (because we should pray like Jesus prayed, and Jesus prayed to his Father), and I don't think Lewis' take on Christ as bridegroom and Church as Bride is as nuanced as it really needs to be (I'll cover this more in a moment). So at the offset, to say "God often seems to be represented by the masculine, therefore only male priests" is actually not a great argument imo; there are too many unwarranted assumptions. Secondly, Lewis writes in a way as to suggest that women don't represent God in any capacity, which clearly contradicts the Imago Dei that both men and women are endowed with (I think a more nuanced approach to In Persona Christi is needed here). Furthermore, to suppose that only one gender is able to communicate the mystery of who God is while only the other gender communicates the mystery of creation does seem to devolve into a difference in dignity, since God is infinite and creation is finite. Also, to suggest that fatherhood points to God being "outside" of creation is just biologically misleading, and furthers a difference in dignity between the sexes, especially since creation was totally passive in its own creation. As much as I respect the hell out of BXVI, I think he could have chosen his words better when referring to the "sovereignty of [God's] creative act" as being best represented by fatherhood. Men are not transcendent or sovereign over women in the sexual act. Again, we need so much more nuance. I'm a big fan of the podcast, I thought your points on the *inability* for the church to ordain women and the reality of vocations were spot on, but this was not your best episode.
Hi, Timothy. I agree; this was not Joe's best episode. On the other hand, that's a high bar. Nothing God does is arbitrary; rather, everything He does in some sense reflects His own nature. Christ both perfectly reflects the Father's nature and is perfect intelligibility. Accordingly, we know that Christ's choice of an all-male priesthood is both intelligible and reflects His own nature, rather than simply being arbitrary. BXVI rightly noted that religions which involve priestesses devolve into pantheism, so this too contributes to meaningful reflection on the question. There is to be recognised a radical distinction between Creator and creation; there is to be recognised a radical distinction between male and female; there is to be recognised a radical distinction between clergy and laity. While each is distinct and operates in its own sphere, there is no reason to suppose that these may not and should not be mutually reinforcing. As for your objection to the diminishment of women, a consideration of history is striking. While it is popular today to rail against the diminisment of women as compared with some imagined idealised standard, the reality is that it is in societies which reject the Christian gospel that women are diminished as compared with societies which embrace it. Further, your denigration of Joe (and his sources)'s discussion of the distinction of men and women is a straw man. Children do naturally identify with their mothers while recognising their fathers as both distinct and sovereign. This gives such children a natural frame of reference to the reality and distinction of Creator and creation, as well as to the realisation of such Sovereign being a beneficent Father. Such distinction is explicitly taught as both reality and model for domestic behaviour throughout Scripture and the Church's teaching.
@@gregorybarrett4998 Thank you for the response! Just some quick clarifications: I'm not arguing that the male-only priesthood is arbitrary, I agree with you that God does nothing arbitrarily. And while Priestesses in the Church is not my favourite work of Lewis (that's mainly what I'm criticizing) I was not intending to denigrate Joe in any way; I really respect him and his work and I apologize to him if that's how the comment came off. My main point is that I think there are a lot of bad ways to think about this issue and I think we need to hold each other to better standards of arguments, that is all.
@@TimothyAndrewHolman Hi, Timothy. The problem is that we are in the midst of a doctrinal development, so we are struggling not just to express the intelligibility of the doctrine but even to develop the conceptual framework by which the intelligibility of the doctrine might be expressed. [I had had a more developed answer, but my system cut out before I could submit it.]
There is a sense in which the Holy Father believes in the ‘God of Surprises’… not the most traditional description for “the same yesterday, today and forever”, but who would have thought that Capital Punishment could have become “inadmissible” after nearly 2000 years of “the state wields the sword for your benefit”. All I’m saying is, pray for his soul
I am a woman working in the church, but I never ever want to have a woman as priests. It is a shepherds task not a mothers task.
Same here! I've been asked if I'm offended by not being able to become a priest, I say no. I'm not sure why I would be offended that God isn't calling me to the particular sacrifices priesthood demands?
Also if my parish were to tell all the women to stop helping since they aren't a priest, oh boy I think it would collapse in a few weeks haha
I received the Holy Eucharist from a woman EM. I felt very uncomfortable, I will never again. I receive only from a Priest from now on.
@websitechron8591
Agreed.
As a woman, I agree with this.
Thank you for your humility!
As a male, I agree with all of you. Imagine women became a priest during Roman Era, she must traveling a lot for liturgical service. Women are vulnerable than man, they will be exposed all kind of danger. So man is practically more suitable to do priestly job at that time. Man can travels alone in wilderness, and physcially more strong.
As someone who struggles a bit with this area of Church teaching, I can definitely say that this is one of the better deep-dives on this topic. Thanks!
Wonderful! I'm so happy it helped.
Jesus' sacrifice is for His bride, the Church.
Analogue to that is a mans sacrifice for his bride.
If the bride brings the sacrifice for herself, you get the ultimate symbol of self adoration; i.e. pride.
The women (and men) behind the women's ordination movement, could not care any less about faithfulness. They are only concerned about power.
Wtf I love ascribing bad motives to my opponents, so easy and comforting
@@graysonguinn1943it’s literally true. So many of these people who promote women’s ordination say that it’s unjust for men to hold all the “power”. They’ve literally made the argument about power and they hate that women can’t have that “power”
@@Jerds there are plenty of egalitarians who are not like that though, it’s unhelpful to write people off as just bad actors instead of engaging
How many parishes are actually run by a female parish administrator today? There is a sense in which they already have a great deal of power and/or authority.
@@graysonguinn1943 not all of them think of ordination as a form of power, that's true... But too many do it.
During an assembly at my local parish, where I serve as a council member, there was a dispute on this issue when a few women protested the fact that women are not allowed to "positions of power". There was no argument we could use to change their view that priests are like political authorities inside the Church and that women would be better administrators, changing the rules to adapt the Church to modern society (abortion and divorce being the first changes).
I had a colleague who always called God "her." I kept saying, Jesus called Him Father. It didn't seem to matter to her. She was a Baptist preacher. Sad, sad.
Yes she was projecting. God does not have a sex because God is spirit. However God is pretty much identified as a man because we use the word father and the name God gave for himself is masculine not feminine.
Projecting herself onto God. Many such cases.
Who, brothers, is to say that is not YE who are projecting 🧐
The idea that Jesus was somehow constrained by 1st century Jewish social norms and that's why he didn't breath on women during Pentecost is absurd. Jesus elevated women by allowing two women to be His first witnesses to the resurrection. So he obviously didn't give a hoot about customs, and this should be clear based on His behavior throughout his entire Earthly ministry. He did care about the Law however, so let me clarify.
Note, that this is the same Jesus that said "I don't care how hard you think it'd be, you can't divorce your wife for any reason" and "You have no life in you unless you eat my flesh."
Pope Francis has confirmed women will never be priests in his 60 minutes interview. He has also added an automatic excommunication to canon law should someone try. We form our conscience from the church, not ourselves.
@@Chicken_of_BristolJesus did provide one valid reading for divorce.
@@paulmualdeave5063he did? Where? I thought he was pointing out to the OT allowance that wasn’t what God wanted but permitted
@@paulmualdeave5063 Nope. Joe's got a great video on that topic too. Go check it out.
It really is quite exhausting sometimes trying to explain that women can’t be ordained into the priesthood and people look at you like you just said women have no place nor public acts of service in the Church. Just because they can’t act in persona Christi doesn’t mean there’s *nothing* for them to do. Their roles just happen in a different capacity.
I know my priests over the years have relied a lot on the ladies of the parish to help them keep things organized and running. Our administrative team keeps records and appointments organized, there’s volunteers for church clean up and event hosting, dedicated prayer groups throughout the week, volunteers and representatives for the city community, etc. When people, no matter if they’re a guy or gal, give their time, talent, and resources for the church, it allows the priest to do his job much more easily and everyone ends up content in the end.
Everyone has a place in the Church and trying to strong arm one’s way into a position they cannot be in doesn’t make things better. Just exhausting for those who have to keep telling them “stop it!”
As a Protestant, yes to this; my synod has been suffering this push 40years, still hasn't got a large majority support and the rest of the ministries are suffering because of it.
The desire for ordination is about power. They just won’t admit it.
We shouldn't sleep on the evidence of the OT priesthood either. The idea that Jesus would have been constrained by Jewish customs because OT priests were only men is really weird because God made those laws too! The Levitical priesthood being all male isn't some accidental Pharisaical practice that developed over the years like washing your hands before eating, it's literally explicitly commanded by God. The same person who said "before Moses was, I AM" gave both sets of laws not only has authority over both sets, but absolutely did not need to set things up that way in the first place if it was going to be a problem for Himself later on.
rome has spoken, the case is closed. nobody should even bring it up anymore. it is a moot point
Unfortunately, look at the head of the Synod's comments on it lately....scary...
For my part, I'm fine with people bringing it up, because the more questions the Church receives, the more she can answer them, add explanations, and make the teaching deeper. Tradition is only as rich as it is because it is the result of thousands of years of asking questions, debating, and getting answers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. One might say that the mark of the true Church is to find the one where people do the most debating. If we truly believe that the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church, then we shouldn't feel threatened by people who struggle with this teaching, but rather praise God for the chance to see Tradition develop before our eyes.
@@glennlanham6309 It’s an advisory board and Pope Francis will not allow women ordination. It isn’t scary at all.
He said “no” in the 60 minutes interview.
@@paulmualdeave5063the pope famously speaks from both sides of his mouth. When he says he won’t do something is when you should worry about it
@@CathNcamo2
I don’t agree.
But in any case, as a woman, I wish the feminists who push this would just stop.
It’s not a DEI issue. All it comes across to me as being is some silly power play. Just stop it. It’s annoying, & it just shows an openness for rebellion.
It’s a kingdom - not a democracy, & if you continue on in this rebellion, you’re gonna have answer to the King one day - if - as the example of Nadab & Elihu showed - the earth doesn’t swallow you up over this…
Reading some of these comments, I think it might be a good idea to do an episode on ministerial versus universal priesthood. You've touched on it on other episodes, but I think an episode dedicated to this topic and also the distinction between priests and bishops would be fruitful.
@@TheCatholicNerd collar and a wafer vs a YT channel and some real Bread 💵 💵 💵
As a protestant, I have been thining about that a lot, about God being a Father and not Mother, and I have struggled with understanding why and to what extent. Your video has helped me understand something I had never heard before, about the otherness of God as opposed to God being part of creation. Thank you very much. God has led me to your channel. He will bless you for this.
There is only one Church which is the only Church with the ‘fullness’ of Truth. Stay Catholic my friends.
Absolutely.we have to keep repeating that.
Jesus is fully man and fully divine. The priests are in the person of christ , therefore men. Very clear.
"There is only one Church which is the only Church with the ‘fullness’ of Truth. Stay Catholic my friends."
Are you familiar with John 8:31, where Jesus said: "If you obey my teaching, you are really my disciples"? So, if the Catholic Church is that "only Church," where in your Bible did Jesus teach Catholics to believe that...
1. inanimate objects such as statures and relics can be worshiped?
2. his mother Mary was immaculately conceived?
3. "we worship one God in trinity"?
4. the Father, Son, and holy spirit make up the same "One Incomprehensible"?
5. Mary can be prayed to?
@@cbooth151 Jesus gave us a Church, not a Bible. The Church via the Holy Spirit, gave us the Bible.
So, tell me.
Where in the Bible does it say everything must be in the Bible?
Tell me, what did Christians do for the first 20-30 years, after the resurrection, before any books of the New Testament were even written?
2 Thessalonians 2: 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by 'word of mouth' or by letter.
Also, You understand the word 'pray' also means to ask, right?
Like a lawyer might 'pray' or 'ask' the court rules in his clients favor.
Catholics 'ask' (pray) Mary to pray for us.
Catholics DO NOT worship Mary.
Only 'uninformed' protestants think Catholics worship Mary.
God Bless You
@@johns1834 "Jesus gave us a Church, not a Bible. The Church via the Holy Spirit, gave us the Bible."
If the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, where in the Bible does it say or imply that...
1. statues and relics can be worshiped?
2. unmarried priests must be bound to celibacy?
3. the Father, Son, and holy spirit make up "One Incomprehensible"?
4. Mary could be worshiped?
5. the Godhead is triune?
6. the prayers of the Rosary can be recited?
7. Mary was immaculately conceived?
8. Peter was the first pope?
9. "we worship one God in trinity"?
10. the Father, Son, and holy spirit are one in nature, essence, and substance?
11. "the Cross of Christ" and the "Crown of Thorns" can be worshiped?
12. the Father, Son, and holy spirit make up the same "One Lord"?
13. the holy spirit is a person?
14. Jesus' birthday was celebrated one December 25th?
15. meat was not to be consumed on Fridays or during Lent?
16. the Father, Son, and holy spirit are co-equal in glory?
17. homosexuals are "children of God"?
18. novenas could be recited?
19. babies could be baptized?
20. priests could be addressed as 'Father'?
21. Mary was a perpetual virgin?
22. the Father, Son, and holy spirit are co-eternal in majesty?
23. Jesus was "true God from true God"?
24. Mary "has a separate and absolutely super-eminent rank among the saints"?
25. purgatory is real?
26. Mary could be prayed to?
So, if the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, why are so many Catholic beliefs not found there?
My mother once told me they reason why women could never receive the priesthood is because God gave men the priesthood to make them more equal with women, since women could create life 😅
I fully agree with her theology.
Gender equality has gone wrong over the years, becoming gender denial. But we are different. As a man, I will never be allowed to give birth to a child. I don't blame God for that. I don't envy women, I'm just happy for them.
Women should do the same.
😂 That’s largely my view of the patriarchy, if you simplify it. 😂
Dude somehow thats a valid point, and a good way of explaining
Makes no sense, men and women are equal because both are made in the image of God. The Lord has different roles for men and women and this is why women cannot be ordained because they have a different purpose.
Cute. Women only incubate like men are the life bearers. We have the seed of life in us. It is women who just carry it.
8:17 This is a great point that I think keeps getting lost by a lot of people: the Church as a familial relationship. The familial language is all over the place from week 1. The destruction of the family in our culture is also seen in the destruction of the perception of the Church as a fundamentally familial relationship.
Extraordinary work, Joe. God truly blesses your ministry.
bless you mr heschmeyer for sharing this timely word with us
The best explanation of why women can't be priests. We have different gifts and roles. Thank you!
Very clearly presented and effectively argued. Thank you, and God bless.
Thank you so much for this comment! -Vanessa
Thank you for this. I’m a woman, and I appreciate the work of male priests and female nuns. Both make important contributions to the Church. I would not want female priests.
Here's my very modest argument. You can't argue for women's ordination alone. If you want to do that, you at the very least have to jettison a lot of the Church's teachings on sexuality. A little more formally, the argument would go something like this: To say with confidence the Church can ordain women, you must say that there is never any sacramentally relevant distinction between men and women. But we already know of at least one sacramentally relevant distinction between men and women because of the sacrament of marriage. If there were no sacramentally relevant distinction between men and women for the purposes of marriage, then the Church's designation that marriage must be between one man and one woman is unintelligible. Because of this, it is plausible that there is a sacramentally relevant distinction for the purposes of the other vocational sacrament, so we cannot say with confidence that the Church should be able to ordain women.
I think this argument is useful in two ways. First, it clearly frames where the burden of proof it, and that's the side arguing for the change. They have a high bar that they need to clear to argue for a change in this kind of thing (even pretending Ordinato Sacredotalis doesn't exist). And second, it forces the interlocutor to be honest and bite the bullet about what they're really arguing for. It's no surprise that women's ordination always goes hand in hand with many other opinions related to how the Church ought to be about sex, but to admit that would give the game away.
Brilliant !
Thank you, Joe, for another great video! Keep up the great work
Beautifully explained. Thank you. 🙏🏼❤️
I can't help but wonder why 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is so often left out of the discussion. Didn't St. Paul give us a compelling reason as to why?
Exactly 💯
I expected that to be the first thing he mentioned.
A clear and cogent presentation. Well done. I might be convinced.
Sheesh, if you are a woman who wants to be ordained, just become a Protestant. Plenty of choices there. Why insist on changing holy tradition...and the Bible? Why would you even want to be part of a church that disagrees with your theology?
Pretty sure most non heretical Protestant denoms don’t ordain women either,if they do it usually means that they embrace LGBTQ as well.
@@RabidLeech1All man-made Protestant denominations are heretical....
@@RabidLeech1 what is a non-heretical Protestant denomination? Seems like an oxymoron. A Protestant church is one that was established, or broke away from, the true Catholic Church over a matter of doctrine.
Because the very existence of virtue is condemnation on vice.
The fact that there is even one denomination which rejects "female pastors" is damnation on all the others. It calls them out as unclean simply by existing.
This is sooooo good! Ty!
Well said as always, Joe! Keep up the great work!
You've barely touched on the meaning and purpose of priesthood. A priest is someone who offers sacrifices to god(s). A Catholic priest is not just a prayer leader, but he works "in persona Christi", and when he offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice, it's actually Jesus Christ offering Himself to the Father - the same offering that He made on Maudy Thursday through Good Friday. Jesus is a man, and so the priest has to be a man too, so that he may represent Christ. If Jesus is the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, then all Catholic priests are to be like him.
And Woman are to become like Mary in every way!
Very well put.
I understand why you want to do shorter videos, and it's great, but for what it's worth, I like your longer videos.
Be cool if you used Pope Francis’ “No” from his 60 minutes interview.
My armchair theologian analysis of Pope Francis' comment was not so much that women can't become ordained within a generation or two, but that it's unfitting for a little girl in doctrinal infancy to already begin imagining herself becoming a priestess. That is, she should learn the faith as it is before becoming an activist
You're right, that would have been a good clip!
@@WayneDrake-uk1gg
He was asked of a little girl will ever grow up to be a priest. He said “no”. That means forever, a girl will never grow to be a priest. Ever. They were not talking about imagination.
Question:
“… you have many young boys and girls that will come here at the end of next month for World Children’s Day and I’m curious for a little girl growing up Catholic today, will she ever have the opportunity to be a deacon and participate as a clergy member in the church…”?
Before he answered, he noted he had said no to women being priests before.
It goes on, “… is that something you open to if it is deacons with holy orders..?”
“If it is deacons with holy orders, no”
This means women will never be ordained even to the lowest order, deacons. Any female deacon would be in the realm of nuns, not “clergy” (deacon, priest, bishop).
@@paulmualdeave5063 yes, very good, thank you for posting that. Apparently I had misremembered the question Just enough to misinterpret the meaning. But it seems you are indeed correct
Wooooow Mr. Joe 🤯this is so wonderful I finally get it! Here at the end you just completely nailed it! It makes so much sence! Here is the reall reason! God is creator not creature!!!
Also, the masculine gives to the feminine. The feminine receives from the masculine. That's also why God is referred to as He. He gives, and the only reason we have anything at all is because He gave it to us, and we received it from Him
And importantly, _women cannot be masculine_
Masculinity and feminity require authenticity with oneself
Enlightening. Thank you
A Woman was already given the honour of bringing God into the world as a Human, thereby elevating all other women in the process. Now, men are given the honour of bringing God into the world again as the Bread of Life
Very well said
Women were used in unique and powerful ways all throughout Scripture, but that doesn't mean we need to push the boundaries in every area of the Church. Everyone has a unique role to fill, while respecting the boundaries God set up.
Thanks much for this video.
I am a protestant and yet I could not agree with you more.
How do you handle the objection that Phoebe is referred to as a deacon (in at least some translations of Romans 16:1)? In the recent uproar over Pope Francis saying no to ordaining women as deacons, she's one of the people used as a supporting argument. (Big fan of your work, Joe. I'm getting ready to begin OCIA this September, and your book about the early church had quite an impact back at the start of my process.)
I'm not Joe, but speaking from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, technically Phoebe was a deaconess, not a deacon. They were separate offices. Our understanding is that deaconesses were most likely the "hands" of the priest for those things and places where it was not proper for him to act - for example, baptizing women during the period where the candidate was baptized naked. The priest would do everything up to the actual immersion, then the men cleared out, the women would be immersed by the deaconess, and once the newly baptized women were robed the priest would return for the rest of the sacramental actions. Today, however, there is no priestly (or "deaconly") function where it would be so improper for a man to interact with a woman that way, that a woman is required to assist.
Thanks Joe! Please rebut Gavin Ortlunds video on priestly celibacy as “accretion”. I’d love to hear your thoughts!
Why can’t squares have 3 sides?
I’m glad you explored possible reasons for the requirement. Lately I’ve been encountering a lot of strident separation of the sacramental requirement from the common reasons proposed for it (like that Christian priesthood is inherently masculine in character). I think this comes from people willing to concede to the feminist critiques of these arguments but not to breaking with the Church, so they insist on Jesus’s choice as the only doctrinal reason and all speculation about the reasons for that choice as fallible and failing theology. The problem here, besides its reductionism not being how we Catholics approach any other subject, is it makes Jesus’ choice seem arbitrary and the Church seem bound to an inexplicable anachronism.
Very true when i was anglican they said we can say our father our our mother who art in heaven
Excellent point starting at 3:15 as a counter to the 'Women's Ordination' position.
No mention of Theology of the Body?? I know you're trying to keep it short but seems like a missed opportunity to at least mention the connection.
Benedict XVI was a brillant man
simple at the moment of transubstantiation when the Host becomes the Body of Christ the Padre is in persona Christi. A woman CANNOT be in persona Christi, it's that simple.
Hi Joe. Check Maria Valtorta on this subject. You will find extraordinary light.
In Roman law the word "preserved" indicated indeed the so-called natural relationship between master and underling
Another strong argument is that of sacramental sign, that requires a certain continuity and similarity between the sign and the thing signified.
People who argue that woman should be priests are not interested in serving G-D's will, but their own. Become a nun if you wish to serve, whats the problem? Desire, ego and ambition is your disposition, rather than a desire to respond to a call to service, as G-D wills it. Be like the blessed Mother Mary!
I love this answer, and fully agree with it. Though, I can hear their rebuttal: Aren’t men just reserving such things - ambition, ego, desire - for themselves, then? I don’t think tradition goes deep enough. I think there is a deep reason that men tended to historically take these sorts of leadership and representative roles, and why God is communicated as “He” rather than “She,” and why He became male and not female.
@14:18 "confusing Ratzinger language". That's me.
Imagine women became a priest during Roman Era, she must traveling a lot for liturgical service. Women are vulnerable than man, they will be exposed all kind of danger. So man is practically more suitable to do priestly job at that time. Man can travels alone in wilderness, and physcially more strong. Priest and apostles like St. Peter and Paul traveling from Middle East to Rome, while another priest and apostle, St. Thomas traveling from Middle East to India to preach the gospel. So its not practical for women to be a priest at that time.
A priest is a father. A nun is a mother. A man can also be brother just like a woman can be sister. The true change is to give more prominence to mothers in the Church. Do you guys know we have Mother Abbess in the Church? That's what we should put more emphasis on.
This makes super much sense
Amazing
I am a protestant. I see ordaining a female elder as wrong because a woman does not meet the criteria laid out for elders in 1 Timothy 3 or in Titus. I do think that a woman can meet the criteria for a Deacon in that same chapter. That is what a Deacon was in the 1st century. It was a service role. I do think the Deacon role in the Roman Catholic church is closer to that of an elder and so I don't think it would be appropriate to have a woman in that role. I don't really feel the need to justify why women can't be elders beyond the inspired word of God says they don't meet the criteria.
Whether you see the need or not is kinda irrelevant. Dozens of denominations have claimed to hold true to scripture, yet they have gone astray in this matter. Scripture itself has never taken out the wooden spoon and given them a piece of it's mind for this, and that is why we need more than only scripture
Jesus commanded his priests to wash the feet of the disciples. This is a metaphor for giving service. To suggest that there are special roles for women is to invite them to carry out this sacerdotal work. I haven't heard people say that this is unsutable for women and that men only should engage in this service.
The arguments set out in this broadcast are similar to the arguments used in the early church to prohibit women from administering baptism.
That Jesus was a man
That He didn't commission women to baptise
That the Apostles didn't allow it
That Mary didn't baptise
That it was the unchanged tradition of the church
That the church couldn't possibly allow it
and yet with the stroke of a Papal pen Pope Urban ll in the year 1096 allowed women to administer baptism eg. to a dying infant.
From that year until today a woman can validly baptise using the prescribed form " I baptise". She can say in the name of the Father ( she can represent the Father ) and of the Son ( she can represent the Son ). The magisterium doesn't have any difficulty with that. Her femininity isn't an obstacle
I know Anglicans are confused and frustrated. Catholics differ from them in their beliefs in many ways and do not refer to them for guidance.
The Church is "the bride of Christ," the sanctuary is the bed chamber (masculine and feminine join), and the tabernacle is the womb that holds the living bread i.e. Jesus. Because a woman cannot marry the bride and create life in the womb, the sanctuary is not a place for women or altar girls.
the real question no one is asking: What does this say about females as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
Does the church teach that this is wrong? I'm female, and I do this. Ive never heard a priest say this wasn't allowed.
two things then a monologue
1. the code of canon law currently does not specify only men, and as this is within the Church's authority it is permitted
2. most of the time that Extraordinary Ministers are used, it is abuse anyway as definitionally every day cannot be "extraordinary circumstances" as the church requires for their use, and often the priest is just lazy
so is it unlawful, currently no, but is it prudent?
one of the ways st JPII argues for a male only priesthood was the imagery of the mass
it is the wedding feast with Christ presiding, and communion is the consummation of our marriage to Christ
as such the minister in persona christi must symbolize Christ in a real manner(male) but as he also discusses its relation to the reception of communion as the consummation it follows that this should apply to any minister distributing communion as well
@@hopefulforhumanity5625 instead of asking whether you will be stopped from doing it, one ought to ask if you doing it is fitting
@@marvalice3455 Why? If it is allowed, then it is. I don't understand your thought process.
A whole video on something so simple.
Matter, Form and Intention. Women are wrong matter and the Intention would also be wrong. Christ hever intended to make women priests.
6:46 Agree. I think is way more radical to hold the Trinity and the Eucharist than the female priesthood. Besides, they are almost portraying Jesus as a coward, when he instead was ready to be left alone if his disciples did not believe in the Eucharist or to die if he was asked if he was the Son of God.
What then does this say about Alter Servers?
Great video suggestion! -Vanessa
While the purpose of Altar Servers was for the formation to the priesthood, there is no reason why it could not also be used for the formation of women religious.
Somebody tell Cardinal Hollerich!!!
I'm new to the church, so I'm sure I'm not understanding this distinction between preaching and the priesthood. Plus, coming from a protestant background I may be conflating preaching with the priesthood. But, I have been reading about the the saints from the book The Golden Legends, and both Saints Martha and Mary Magdalene were said to be preaching. Is this something different?
Priesthood is not about preaching (although they must preach too). They are there to act "in persona Christi" or "In the person of Christ" as Jesus in the Mass. Thus Jesus is here in the flesh sacrificing Jesus in the flesh to God the Father in the Mass. That is one of the main differences between the Catholic Church and (most) Protestants. It also explains why we no longer have Jewish Temple sacrifice because it was replaced with Jesus' sacrifice.
To my understanding, anyone who is a disciple of Christ can preach, because it's evangelizing. Any of these youtubers are preaching lol but they certainly aren't priests.
Need to make sure we are on the same understanding of preaching. If preaching = homilies then only an ordained minister can do that. Same with proclaiming the Gospel at Mass.
If preaching is defined more broadly as teaching the kingdom of God and evangelizing then any
Baptized believer can do that as baptism consecrates all believers as priests, prophets, and kings.
@@ereinei I honestly have no idea. According to the accounts about those particular saints it said they were preaching about Jesus to the people in Marseille. I got the impression it was in a town square. There were no established churches in France at the time that they were "preaching". It also mentions in the account that later Saint Maximin was ordained Bishop of Aix.
Coming from a Protestant background, you were probably told that women can't preach because they're not pastors and St. Paul said they weren't to teach in church. But people, especially Protestants, often misunderstand Paul's epistles. The reason why he said that women weren't to teach and were to be quiet in the particular church he was writing to is because they were being loud and disorderly and setting themselves up as teachers in the middle of the service. Paul's solution to this was to tell the church he was addressing that the women were to be quiet and ask questions at home, not during the service. The Mass is meant to be reverent and orderly, not a free for all gathering where people socialize with one another like in many evangelical churches. That doesn't mean that women can't teach the faith or preach the gospel, to say otherwise is to extrapolate Paul's writings and create a prohibition where none existed.
It’s called in persona christi. A woman cannot act in the person of Christ.
Well, for whatever reason Francis is keeping the question open and at the same time is calling for a "new theology" because apparently according to him the perennial theology that's already been affirmed for 2 thousand years is insufficient.
People wanting to change the church are doing it because they want not because God wants them to. It’s pride that guides them.
HE chose men as His apostles, women have a different role.
As far as I'm aware, the Church has always acknowledged female Saints and their importance in the Church, even recognising some as Doctors of the Church. As Joe mentioned in this video, we venerate the Blessed Mother, to an extent that makes our protestant brethren uncomfortable, putting it mildly!
It seems clear to me, then, that whatever reason the Church has for not allowing female priests, it can't be sexism.
Ordaining women to act in persona Christi would be totally nonsensical. Imagine that Christ had been embodied as a woman and had given birth to a baby, and that this baby became a sacrificial offering and that this was re-enacted during a 'mass'. And then imagine that men wanted to be ordained to act in persona Christi in order to reenact the act of giving birth to the body and blood of that sacrificial child (in the form of a piece of bread) which we would all believe to be the real body and blood of Christ's child.
Do you think women and men (normal and not trans ideologized men and women) might find it somewhat odd?
Ordaining women would be as completely mental as ordaining men to actually give birth at every mass.
agreed - father's and mother's both create but father's do it outside of themselves, and are (in historical stereotypical terms), the initiator. Mother's create inside themselves and (again in those terms - but these were the context of revelation) are the receptive agent. And in our religion the transcendant supercedes the immanent as ultimately God is beyond all that exists.
Was this video motivated by that "Ordain a Lady" music video going around? Super cringe but still clever and catchy nonetheless.
There’s not one place in the old and New Testament that says or was allowed to have female priests or bishops,besides that there not one place in the New Testament that reveals any of the holy women including Mother Mary that they were teaching anyone but rather only ministered to Jesus and the apostles with food clothing and whatever other types of material support that they could do.But I must say this that if any of the holy women or Mother Mary spoke of anything concerning Jesus teachings or what the apostles had taught they were only repeating what they have been taught and learned like the sheep of the Catholic Church only repeat what we are taught
3:45 anyone who wants to argue Jesus opposed slavery will have a field day with this opinion.
Really interesting video. The only thing I'll say is as an Anglican this "other religion" which the Church of England (and I guess many other churches in the Anglican Communion) is warping into did not start with female ordination, but rather has been going on for quite some time now.
Because fatherless men don't need another woman to talk to. Everybody has a mother. Not everybody a father
Priests act in “Persona Christi”, or in the person of Christ as the incarnation of God.
The “Church” is His Bride. A bride is traditionally a female.
Can a female priest marry the Bride (female), his Church?
This hasn’t been brought up yet. Can a man marry a man, or a female marry a female in the eyes of God? I think we all know the answer.
"I want you to include me in something I don't need" - women, in any sector of culture in the world.
Women are just as important as men
Amen! God bless the clergy!
Joe just went where angels fear to tread 😅
Great vid Joe. If you have the time, could you ever address full preterism? It was an in-road to a Catholicism for me, but not necessarily fully compatible. While some converts from Protestantism wrestle with Mariology as they grow in the faith, I wrestle with eschatology! A number of folks have reached out to me in response to my explorations of this subject - full preterists who are on the edge of conversion to Catholicism; Catholics who are trying to understand eschatology better, etc. I address the subject here, would love if you would respond to some of the questions etc: ua-cam.com/video/YjZ6W4NyOAs/v-deo.htmlsi=m4bhMavzEDKvTVXm
1. "By contrast, the image of the Father was and is apt for expressing the otherness of the Creator and creature and the sovereignty of His creative act. Only by excluding the mother-deities could the Old Testament bring its image of God, the pure transcendence of God, to maturity." (Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 1)
Response: Are you sure this isn't a quotation from Dr. James White, the Reformed Baptist? If he didn't write it, at least it would tantalize him with some Calvinist sounding catnip, i.e., 'sovereignty'.
2. To what can I compare Pope John Paul II's vehemence in Ordinatio Sacerdotis 4 when he writes: "I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful"?
Only this: "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'" (Genesis 2:15-17, KJV)
3. And if the King James Bible was good enough for Moses, then that's good enough for me.
Priests act in persona Christe and we know Jesus was a male... He was circumcised. Case closed.
The Catholic Church headed by Jesus is the One, True, Apostolic Faith which supports the Tradition of Faith handed down through the true lineage of popes. It is not compromised to please certain dissident groups. It does not support abortion, birth control, women priests or homosexuality. It is a faith which accepts the seven sacraments wholeheartedly, and firmly believes in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. It is loyal to the Pope.
The church of compromise accepts only certain points of truth and compromises other points. They may choose names like the ‘New American Catholic Church’ or ‘FutureChurch’ or others. Compromise of the truth is from Satan-always. The problem lies in the fact that the dissident ‘catholics’ do not leave the Church; instead, they continue to call themselves ‘Catholic’ and try to change the truth from within.
All believers in Christ are priests, according to Peter.
“…you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ…
…But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”
1 Peter 2:5,9
Indeed!
"and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. ..." Exodus 19:6
and yet God still made the Levitical Priesthood male only in the Old Testament. This verse from 1 Peter does not say anything about the Levitical Priesthood, it is echoing Exodus 19:6 which does not apply to the Levitical Priesthood.
There are 3 levels of Priests: Highpriest who is only Jesus now; Ministerial/Levitical priests which is what we call Priests; and universal priests which is what we call Christians. 1 Peter 2:5,9 and Exodus 19:6 are both about universal priests/Christians.
Korah and his followers got literally consumed by the earth because they conflated universal priests with Levitical priests, Numbers 16; Jude 1:11.
@@NJWEBER18 the NT doesn't have the office of ministerial priests. The only offices in the NT are elders, also called bishops, & deacons.
@@Maranatha99 ? Elder in greek is Presbyteros which is where we get the word Priest from. In the tribe of Levi, men that were not Priests were Servants of the Temple. Deacon just means servant. Elders and Deacons were definitely Ministerial priests.
Only ordained priests can offer physical sacrifices, instead of merely spiritual ones. At the mass, the Priest says "Pray my brethren that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the Almighty Father". Our Sacrifices are spiritual, but the Priest's is Jesus's real body, blood, soul, and divinity.
On this platform there is at least one video of Mother Angelica responding to this question. Her response is pithy.
To summarize Archbishop Fulton Sheen: "The Word of God is the seed. It is the purpose of Man to plant seeds, that's why women have never been ordained."
Yeah, what did Christ say?
They don't ordain women priests,yet they exhalt mary as queen of heaven in revelation of John chapter 12.
Just give theological evolution time to turn this 180 degrees.
Occam's Razor- Judaism didn't allow female rabbis, so the Apostles didn't allow female priests out of tradition for that patriarchal system. Nothing to do with Jesus, just those men and their upbringing. Everything is just excuse-making for those men and their decision.
Them: “Jesus couldn’t disrespect the norms of his time, and especially the priesthood.”
“…You brood of vipers!…”
- Jesus, to the Pharisees (teachers)
“You are making [the temple] a den of robers!”
- Jesus, to the sadducees (priests)
“You brood of vipers!…”
- John the Baptist, to both the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Them: “But, I just mean like he couldn’t change the structure of the priesthood. Him saying they are a brood of vipers is more about morals, not a critique of the system!”
Us: “yeah, we agree. He did not want to change the system! Therefore, it is not changed… even today”
Them: “But wait! No! You can’t twist our words like that! We know he was too scared to critique social things, that was the roadblock! This is just a fact, but today we are socially okay with it, so we can! That’s our argument. Stop trying to deny this fact.”
Us: “Please refer to the above quotes. …is it really a social thing…?”
Dearest brother...I do love your teaching style and your videos! You are my favorite teacher at Catholic Answers, and I like you all. Is it impossible for the men of the feminine Church, which is made up of more women than men, to ordain women as Priests? Perhaps. Many things are impossible with men. However, as our Lord declared, nothing is impossible with God! In the 1st century, remember that that ancient pagan Greek word for woman literally means "walking womb". That Jesus would appear first to women was outrageous! Women weren't even allowed to give testimony in a court of law! Why would Jesus do such a thing if He wanted people to believe He had risen from the dead? Please consider that the first Apostle and Priest was not male at all! The Blessed Mother, in the moment of her great Fiat, was the first to consecrate the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus to the whole world. The male Apostles came after her, and none of them can compare to her...and only women can seek to emulate her. The God who ordained Our Lady both Apostle and Priest followed His own precedent. He is the God of Judge Deborah, that "Woman of Fire" ("wife of Lappidoth" in verse 4 is a mistranslation, as she was likely a consecrated virgin as well as an anointed Judge and Prophet). She was the leader of Israel and arguably the greatest of all the Judges (see Judges Chapters 4 & 5). She served God with her great mind and knowledge of His law! We also know that women, such as Phoebe, were ordained Deacons in the earliest days of the Church. There are records of women Deacons who were less well known very early in the Church...so the exclusion of women came later, when the men of the Church started arguing about whether women only possessed 1/3 of a soul. It came about when the men of the Church argued that "women are defective men". You know this isn't true! Priscilla discipled both Apollos and St. Paul, both of whom were already experts of Sacred Scripture. I do not think the Magisterium has truly and deeply considered the words of St. Paul, or fully developed it in its obviously eternal doctrinal importance: "...there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28). This is explicit...both men and women can stand "in persona Christi". So, respectfully, the members of the Church are unsexed in Christ, for His Spirit dwells in each of us the same. In fact, Jesus made it clear that gender as we know it will be abolished at the time of Resurrection, making marriage obsolete. (Matt. 22:29). Go back and study Genesis...two genders was not even God's first choice for humanity. He only took the woman out of man because the man was not satisfied with only his relationship with God and the animals given for companionship. (Gen. 2:20). It was arguably that dissatisfaction that may have led to original sin.
I have no idea who you have been listening to, Darla, but you would do well to make significant changes in the sources which form your thought. The deprecatory associations that you've indicated in your comment reveal some important distortions in your thought. You would do better to form your thought with magisterial teaching, unless you explicitly and consciously reject Catholic doctrine of infallibility. If that is the case, then you are not Catholic; instead happening to agree with particular doctrines. If on the other hand you are Catholic, then you hold firmly and definitively that the Church has no competence to ordain women to the order of the priesthood in any of its three degrees. There are plenty of Protestant denominations which would be happy to receive you, and many which might be happy to ordain you, but a Catholic who argues for the ordination of women is effectively a traitor. Such is the force of definitive doctrinal declarations.
Only Catholic men can become priests is a Catholic Church dogma. Catholic Dogmas can never be change. Only Catholic disciplines can be change by the Church.
And teachings lower than dogma
@@MegaRh123 If such teaching lower than dogma is not part of Sacred Tradition, such as when taught only by a few or only in a particular context or only for a time. Otherwise, though not dogmatically defined, it becomes part of the infallible ordinary magisterium and cannot be changed, such as when Paul VI renewed the Church's perennial teaching on artificial contraceptives.
Yeah, for some reason I got confused for a minute, lol. I was thinking of development, not change. Sorry for getting us off on a tangent...
Neat
Anglican, the church nearest to the Catholic church in its doctrines and traditions unfortunately, ordains women.
And experienced a schism in response. But Anglicans have little clarity of doctrine on many matters. It is also arguable that the orthodox churches are closer to Catholic in their theology than Anglicans are.
Anglicans are not Catholic
Imma keep it a buck fifty with you Joe- that thumbnail got me a little sweaty. Sheeeeeshhhhh.
Please don't misunderstand me, I assent to the Magisterium on this issue wholeheartedly, but personally, Lewis' argument really disturbs me. For one, I think there are other far more compelling explanations for why there is a hefty amount of fatherhood language for God especially in the NT (the fact of Jesus already having a mother is a big one for starters), I don't actually think having women priests necessarily leads to a justification of saying "Our Mother" (because we should pray like Jesus prayed, and Jesus prayed to his Father), and I don't think Lewis' take on Christ as bridegroom and Church as Bride is as nuanced as it really needs to be (I'll cover this more in a moment). So at the offset, to say "God often seems to be represented by the masculine, therefore only male priests" is actually not a great argument imo; there are too many unwarranted assumptions. Secondly, Lewis writes in a way as to suggest that women don't represent God in any capacity, which clearly contradicts the Imago Dei that both men and women are endowed with (I think a more nuanced approach to In Persona Christi is needed here). Furthermore, to suppose that only one gender is able to communicate the mystery of who God is while only the other gender communicates the mystery of creation does seem to devolve into a difference in dignity, since God is infinite and creation is finite. Also, to suggest that fatherhood points to God being "outside" of creation is just biologically misleading, and furthers a difference in dignity between the sexes, especially since creation was totally passive in its own creation. As much as I respect the hell out of BXVI, I think he could have chosen his words better when referring to the "sovereignty of [God's] creative act" as being best represented by fatherhood. Men are not transcendent or sovereign over women in the sexual act. Again, we need so much more nuance.
I'm a big fan of the podcast, I thought your points on the *inability* for the church to ordain women and the reality of vocations were spot on, but this was not your best episode.
Hi, Timothy.
I agree; this was not Joe's best episode. On the other hand, that's a high bar.
Nothing God does is arbitrary; rather, everything He does in some sense reflects His own nature. Christ both perfectly reflects the Father's nature and is perfect intelligibility. Accordingly, we know that Christ's choice of an all-male priesthood is both intelligible and reflects His own nature, rather than simply being arbitrary. BXVI rightly noted that religions which involve priestesses devolve into pantheism, so this too contributes to meaningful reflection on the question.
There is to be recognised a radical distinction between Creator and creation; there is to be recognised a radical distinction between male and female; there is to be recognised a radical distinction between clergy and laity. While each is distinct and operates in its own sphere, there is no reason to suppose that these may not and should not be mutually reinforcing.
As for your objection to the diminishment of women, a consideration of history is striking. While it is popular today to rail against the diminisment of women as compared with some imagined idealised standard, the reality is that it is in societies which reject the Christian gospel that women are diminished as compared with societies which embrace it. Further, your denigration of Joe (and his sources)'s discussion of the distinction of men and women is a straw man. Children do naturally identify with their mothers while recognising their fathers as both distinct and sovereign. This gives such children a natural frame of reference to the reality and distinction of Creator and creation, as well as to the realisation of such Sovereign being a beneficent Father. Such distinction is explicitly taught as both reality and model for domestic behaviour throughout Scripture and the Church's teaching.
@@gregorybarrett4998 Thank you for the response! Just some quick clarifications: I'm not arguing that the male-only priesthood is arbitrary, I agree with you that God does nothing arbitrarily. And while Priestesses in the Church is not my favourite work of Lewis (that's mainly what I'm criticizing) I was not intending to denigrate Joe in any way; I really respect him and his work and I apologize to him if that's how the comment came off. My main point is that I think there are a lot of bad ways to think about this issue and I think we need to hold each other to better standards of arguments, that is all.
@@TimothyAndrewHolman Hi, Timothy.
The problem is that we are in the midst of a doctrinal development, so we are struggling not just to express the intelligibility of the doctrine but even to develop the conceptual framework by which the intelligibility of the doctrine might be expressed.
[I had had a more developed answer, but my system cut out before I could submit it.]
There is a sense in which the Holy Father believes in the ‘God of Surprises’… not the most traditional description for “the same yesterday, today and forever”, but who would have thought that Capital Punishment could have become “inadmissible” after nearly 2000 years of “the state wields the sword for your benefit”. All I’m saying is, pray for his soul