It seems clear to me that there were 12 men chosen to be the Apostles for a very specific theological function. They represented the 12 tribes of Israel. They represented the completeness of Israel. Since it was Israel that they were representing, which was legally constituted only by men, all 12 that Jesus chose, were men. After this symbolism had been portrayed at Pentecost, there was no necessity to replace any Apostles who may have died, like they did with Matthias. The ministerial function of the twelve was not very different than the rest of the disciples. After all, there are more Apostles, like James, Paul and Barnabas that aren't considered to be one of the 12. It wasn't necessary to keep perpetuating this symbolism of the 12 tribes after Pentecost, in the earliest Church the roles and functions that later came to be associated with the priestly ministry were never limited to the 12. If the theology of the priest as another Christ is meant to draw attention to the continued mediatorship of humanity in God's giving of grace, one might argue that a priesthood involving both males and females is a better symbol of humanity and overcomes the biological limitation of the incarnation. Perhaps Jesus intended that later Christians would realize this and admit women into the Apostolic Ministry of the Church regardless of their biological differences. The fact that the original 12 apostles were male has symbolic importance, but had nothing to do with maleness being a necessity for Church ministry.

-- Tim Naderin (TimNaaz313@hotmail.com), May 06, 2004

Answers

Maleness is not a necessity for Church ministry, which is why so many Catholic women are so actively involved in Church ministry in so many ways. However, it is necessary for the priestly identity of alter Christi - to stand in the place of a God Who has consistently portrayed Himself in male terms. If it is true that "it wasn't necessary to keep perpetuating this symbolism of the 12 tribes after Pentecost", then one would have to conclude that the early Church found it necessary to retain the male priesthood for other reasons, since they did so without exception. You are correct in stating that "in the earliest Church the roles and functions that later came to be associated with the priestly ministry were never limited to the 12". The priestly ministry was soon passed on by the 12 through ordination to additional clergy, consistently male, who in turn passed it on to others, down to the present day. The original number of 12 has lost its significance in modern times, but the essence of the ministry has not. It is highly unlikely that Jesus intended that later Christians would "realize" that what He Himself taught was incorrect, or at least unnecessary.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 06, 2004.

"Theologically, the priesthood must remain male. Consider the words of consecration: 'This is my body'. Now, the priest speaks sacramentally 'in the person of Christ' (in persona Christi). It is Jesus who consecrates the host through the priest who is an instrument only. Thus, since it is Jesus who says, 'This is my body', the priest through whom Christ speaks must also be male otherwise the very meaning of the mass is distorted and perverted." John Pacheco

You say: Perhaps Jesus intended that later Christians would realize this and admit women into the Apostolic Ministry of the Church regardless of their biological differences. The fact that the original 12 apostles were male has symbolic importance, but had nothing to do with maleness being a necessity for Church ministry.

Baloney. Jesus did God's will. Jesus appointed 12 male apostles. This action caused leaders of the early church and for 2000 years thereafter to consider the priesthood an all male domain. If it was God's will for persons of either gender to become priests, do you think that He would not foresee that such an action would result in so much discrimination? If it was His will for persons of either gender to be priests, then Jesus' actions, which are the cause of the all male priesthood, are the cause of 2000 years of injustice. Absurd!

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 06, 2004.

Everything to which the Church abides has a practical purpose. Everything instituted by the Church extends in faith, in morals and in ministry. Not only is there a reason for that which we believe, but practical meaning and purpose. Christian love, because Christ loves and Christ is God, is something we should all do because it gives dignity to the "other." Justice, peace, righteousness all have practical implications for the life of the Christian. Faith in the Triune God allows the Christian to establish a relationship with God, thus establishing a relationship with others.

But an all-male priesthood? I would LOVE to hear any practical implications that has for the life of the Christian. Does it aid in our faith that the priest is male? Why would it hurt that the priest is female? Because it confuses the Christian? No way. Because Christ never spoke to women? Nope. Because the revelation and presence of God as Christ contradicts the female nature? Nah...what about Mary? Does God really only reveal Godself as male? I don't think so. 2,000 years of injustice in the Church doesn't seem so absurd to me. Our faith dwells in absurdity. The Incarnation.

To say that the Institution of the Roman Catholic Church has been free of injustice for 2,000 years is absurd. Injustices imposed by the institutional Church, from the very beginning, have been well documented, in many different ways, in many different places for 2,000 years. As long as there are imperfect human institutions, there will be injustices. The Institutional Church has been very good about correcting itself for 2,000 years. It's only a matter of time before it "grows in truth" on this particular matter. Ordination is a doctrinal matter, but doctrinal matters are not free from "growth in truth."

And when the Church's teaching on this matter does "grow in truth" and gets written in some encyclical in the near future, it will very arrogantly write, "...like the Church has always taught, women are to be admitted into the sacramental priestly ministry of the Church."

-- Tim Naderin (TimNaaz313@hotmail.com), May 07, 2004.

Hi Tim!

Everything to which the Church abides has a practical purpose

The last thing the Church would do is reduce everything to a practical purpose. That is a human instinct.

Brian has addressed the reason the Church can not ordain women priests and that is how I understand it also. The sanctity and purpose of the Blessed Sacrament must be preserved in the way that Christ has instituted.

IMHO, the pivotal moment of the Protestant movement was when Martin Luther denied the Mother of God and Mother of the Church, the Body of Christ. Denying what Jesus instituted, "Woman, behold, your son." began the slide down a long slippery slope. The signs of this "progression" one can see in the fragmentation and disunity, the denial of the Divine Presense in the Blessed Sacrament prefigured in loss of the Divine Presense in the Holy of Holies of the Temple, and the denial of Christ's Divinity and the fall to final denial of his Godhood.

The Church must continue it's responsibility of preserving the Lord's Institution. It can not succumb to secular pressure to become practical for it is a Divine Institution. We are called to be one in Christ.

God Bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), May 07, 2004.

"Does it aid in our faith that the priest is male?"

A: Does it aid in our faith to accept what Jesus Christ taught? More than "aiding" in our faith, this IS our faith. Christ made it absolutely obvious that it was His divine intent and purpose to select men and only men for His priesthood. To reject that divine revelation is not only to reject an "aid" to faith, but to reject faith itself.

"Why would it hurt that the priest is female?"

A: Everything that rejects, ignores, or perverts the clear teaching of Christ is harmful to faith and freedom. Christ said it is the truth that sets us free. Any deviation from His clear and constant teaching, made evident to humankind through His infallible Church, is a deviation from truth, from faith, and from freedom.

"To say that the Institution of the Roman Catholic Church has been free of injustice for 2,000 years is absurd."

A: Who said that?

"As long as there are imperfect human institutions, there will be injustices."

A: That's correct, as far as it goes. But for the sake of accuracy, the Catholic Church is not a "human institution". It is a divine institution - instituted and maintained by God Himself. Nevertheless, it does necessarily involve the actions and ideas of men, and therefore is vulnerable to mistakes (except in the area of doctrine, where the Holy Spirit prevents any possibility of error), and injustice.

"doctrinal matters are not free from "growth in truth."

A: That is correct. But it goes without saying that "growth in truth" - or more precisely, "growth in the understanding of truth" - cannot take place unless truth is first present. A doctrine must be true before one can further understand the truth of it. Doctrinal matters are not free from "growth in understanding", but they are free of essential error, and therefore are free from the possibility of reversal.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 07, 2004.

---"The Church must continue it's responsibility of preserving the Lord's Institution. It can not succumb to secular pressure to become practical for it is a Divine Institution."---

Why not? That was the whole purpose of Vatican II, right? Who says that it will not keep happening? It just seems like the more you hold on to absolutes and perpetuate archaic traditions you end up hurting the Church. There's shortages of priests, priestly vocations and mass attendance. I have actually heard people say that this isn't true, yet all the bishops preach about is how badly we need vocations and how poor mass attendance is. I guess its nice to have things never change, but how nice will it be when there's three male priests left in the Church and no actual Catholics!

-- Tim Naderin (TimNaaz313@hotmail.com), May 07, 2004.

Tim,

Can you elaborate on the purpose of Vatican II as you understand it? If you mean the purpose of Vatican II was to succumb to secular pressure and become practical while disregarding Sacred Tradition as it was handed down then I don't see it that way. Again, that's the last thing the Church should do. Since the first thing is to call people like you and me to unity in obediance and understanding of God with the Magisterium, and with innumerable other things to do in it's mission, then the last thing the Church should do is the thing the Church would never do. If you think being resistant to change is my position than I would differ in saying that being obediant and receptive to Christ is what I am doing while there are too many things to learn and understand in the little time I have and too little to pontificate on my part to show that I know better than the Magisterium.

As you so pointed out: just seems like the more you hold on to absolutes and perpetuate archaic traditions you end up hurting the Church

Priestesses were around long before Jesus was begotten in the flesh. Who is being archaic? Jesus instituted the New Covenant. Surely you don't mean to say the life, the times, and calling of the Apostles are archaic. In truth, I don't perpetuate any archaic traditions. What I say is current and I know as fact this is what the church teaches. You know it, too.

Peace be with you,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), May 07, 2004.

Tim,

It has been explained to you why women cannot be priests, yet you are confident that the Church will one day "grow in truth," the truth that you are privy to. Perhaps one day the church will "grow in truth" and allow priests to fornicate. This would probably increase the number of priests, dontcha think? Perhaps one day the church will "grow in truth" and allow contraception. This could probably pull in alot of protestants and increase mass attendance. Perhaps one day the church will "grow in truth" and allow abortion. This could bring in alot of "pro-choicers" who are turned off by how the church "holds on to absolutes and perpetuates archaic traditions."

So you think that the purpose of Vatican II, is to "succumb to secular pressure to become practical." Unfortunately, over the last 40 years, many have misinterpreted Vatican II using this line of reasoning to reconstruct the mass, church architecture, and catholic culture in general. The spirit of Vatican II has been hijacked according to Cardinal Ratzinger, a peritus on the Council. This kind of secular thinking, far from being the answer to the priest shortage, has caused the priest shortage IMHO. There were 49,000 seminarians in 1965. By 2002 the number had plunged to 4,700 - a 90 percent decrease. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2002. Today there are more priests aged 80-84 than there are aged 30-34. So allowing women to be priests would be the answer, right? No not when you consider that in 1965 there were almost 180,000 nuns in the United States. Today there are 75,000, with an average age of 69. So actually the priesthood and the convents were in better shape with the "absolutes" and "archaic traditions" which you disdain.

We don't need the church to "grow in truth." We don't need to water down church tradition. We need to grow the Faith. We need to return to devotion to God, to Jesus, to Mary, to the Rosary, to the Sacraments, to catechism. Being a Catholic is awesome. Too bad many Catholics don't realize this. :-(

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 08, 2004.

So why can't I be a nun?

-- mark advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), May 08, 2004.

How would you look in a habit Mark?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 09, 2004.