WHY PRIESTS CAN ONLY EVER BE MEN….Ann Barnhardt

Barnhardt
Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta.
Skip to content

Home
Contact
About Ann Barnhardt
FAQ’s
The One About…
Ann’s YouTube Channel
Latin Rosary

The One About WHY PRIESTS CAN ONLY EVER BE MEN

Originally penned and posted on January 19, ARSH 2013

I was planning for this to be the last essay I ever wrote, and since we’re into “any day now” territory, and since I’ve had just about enough of these lesbian pagan witch nuns and their “female ordination” horse diarrhea, I’m dropping the bomb. And yes, it’s a bomb. I’ve delayed on writing this particular essay because it is really, really hardcore. Very, very advanced stuff. At least it is today. Five hundred years ago it was probably common knowledge, but today I don’t think there are very many people who understand this concept. I explained it to a traddy-inclined seminarian recently, and even he didn’t know. And, all of the essays I see around the blogosphere being written about “female ordination” (there’s no such thing) never get anywhere near this concept, instead relying almost exclusively on the “Our Lord only ordained men in the Upper Room” argument, which is true, but it is lacking. WHY did Our Lord only ordain men? A two year old sees the need for that corollary to be answered. You can’t just leave it hanging. WHY is the ordained priesthood, now and forever, exclusive to men?

Not only does this question have an answer, it is an incredibly beautiful answer that needs to be shouted from the mountaintops in this time like never, ever before. The answer involves the concepts of gender, marriage and sexuality; the very areas of culture under profound, direct demonic attack; the very areas of culture upon which civilization lives or dies. And the answer resides, as it has for 1980 years, in the Mass. First, let’s talk about gender.

God, in Himself, contains both masculine and feminine. GASP! God contains a feminine nature? Of course He does. Goodness. If God possessed no feminine nature, then that would mean that women contained a nature that was completely outside of God. How could God create something which He Himself did not contain? Well, you might say, God doesn’t have an evil nature, but evil exists. No. Evil is merely the absence of good. Evil is not extant, just as cold is the mere absence of heat, and darkness is the mere absence of light. Femininity is an extant nature. Femininity is NOT the absence of masculinity. Femininity is an existential reality unto itself, and therefore God contains it in Himself.

Let’s define masculinity and femininity with two axioms:

The essence of masculinity is INITIATION.

The essence of femininity is RESPONSE.

In all aspects of life, from sociology to courtship to sexual intercourse itself, men are vocationally the initiators – or at least they SHOULD BE. Men lead. Men make decisions. Men command armies and wage war. Men initiate courtship. Men are the head of the household. Even the male anatomy is initiatory. The man introduces his body into that of his wife.

Females are the receptors and responders in human existence. Females listen, and respond. Females follow. Females render assistance and are responsive helpmates. Females respond, in the affirmative or the negative, to the courtship advances of men. Females receive the love of their husbands and respond by submitting themselves to their husbands. The female anatomy is a physical receptacle for the body of her husband, which then returns to him from the same physical space the fruit of their mutual love – a child.

God the Father gives Himself fully to God the Son. God the Son fully receives the love of God the Father and then fully returns it. This intercourse of infinite love being perpetually given, received and returned yields a third – God the Holy Ghost. Thus, God, in His infinite capacity as both INITIATOR and RECEIVER/RESPONDER within Himself, clearly contains BOTH masculine and feminine nature. God isn’t like men and women. Men and women are like God – created in His image, both male and female.

So why do we call God “He” exclusively? Because in the God-man relationship, God is the INITIATOR and mankind is the RESPONDER. The relative disproportion here is so great that it can be said to be practically infinite. God created and perpetuates in existence the entire universe JUST SO MAN CAN EXIST. God became incarnate JUST SO THE BROKEN RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOD AND MAN COULD BE RESTORED. God died on the Cross JUST SO HIS LOVE FOR MAN COULD BE MANIFESTED TO THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE EXTENT. God comes to us in the Eucharist SO THAT WE NEED NEVER BE SEPARATED FROM HIM. Initiation, initiation, initiation.

Every man’s life is nothing more than responding to desperate, pleading love overtures and nuptial initiation of God. We either say yes, or we say no. And like the Gentleman He is, He never coerces. He is there, infinitely powerful, infinitely virile and infinitely reaching out to us, but at the same time infinitely meek (meekness is power under control, remember), infinitely gentle and patiently persistent in His advances.

BUT, there is exactly ONE MOMENT wherein God, so utterly consumed and infinitely condescending in His love for mankind, actually goes so far as to permit man to take the role of initiator (masculine), and God Himself voluntarily, for just a moment, RESPONDS TO THE INITIATING ACT OF MAN. Yes, God makes His feminine nature manifest before mankind. That moment of total condescension of God to man is in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, specifically at the moment of consecration of the Host and the Chalice.

In the traditional, pre-Vatican II rites, such as the Tridentine, Ambrosian, and Dominican rites, at the moment of consecration, when the priest, in an act of masculine initiation, is calling God to the altar, both at the consecration of the Host and at the consecration of the Chalice, the priest MUST bend over the altar, stare intently at the Host or the Chalice, and rest his elbows on the altar. In this posture, and this posture only, does the priest then say the words that actually effect the change of the bread and the wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I was received into the Church at Easter 2007 in a Novus Ordo parish. I found and attended a Tridentine Mass for the first time in July of 2008. At the first Tridentine Mass I attended I was lost had my nose in the missal and missed the consecration. I didn’t see it. I was looking down, and only looked up at the elevation when the server rang the bell. At the SECOND Tridentine Mass I attended, I resolved to LOOK and SEE the Mass and not worry so much about the missal that Sunday. When I saw the priest bend over and put his elbows down on the altar, hoo boy, I was never looking back. By the grace of God I instantly recognized what was happening, and a whole lot of Catholic theology fell squarely into place.

The priest puts his elbows down on the altar because the altar is A MARRIAGE BED, and the act of consecration is the consummation of the nuptial union between God and man, but in that moment the condescension of God is so utterly complete that God becomes, just for a moment, the feminine responder to the masculine initiating action of man who says the words of consecration. The priest lovingly holds the Host in his hands beneath him atop the supernatural marriage bed of the altar, leans over, looks intently at the Host and whispers, “HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM / This is My Body,” and then with the Chalice, “HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI / For this is the Chalice of My Blood.” And then, in the hands of and lying completely vulnerable to man in the supreme act of loving response, is Our Lord, physically present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

So, for the sake of clarity, YES, the consecration of the Host and Chalice in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a direct analogue to sexual intercourse between husband and wife. There. I said it. That wasn’t so difficult, now was it? Goodness. In fact, the consecration is the GREATER REALITY, and the marital act between husband and wife is the LESSER REALITY which reflects and points to the greater reality of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And, it works both ways. After the consecration, Our Lord goes right back to being the masculine initiator and the priest and the faithful become the normal relative feminine in relation to God in our nature as human beings as we RECEIVE Our Lord by taking Him physically into our bodies in the Eucharist, of which the marital embrace is also an image, only with the gender roles the other way. The nuptial nature of the Mass was known immediately to the Apostles at the Last Supper. In the ancient Jewish tradition, at marriage feasts, the husband and wife would each take a piece of bread, and each would take turns holding the bread up, saying, “Eat this. This is my body,” and then hand-feeding the piece of bread to the spouse. Where do you think the tradition of the bride and groom feeding each other a piece of the wedding cake at the reception comes from? Thus when Our Lord said, “This is My Body,” the Apostles all instantly understood the mystical nuptial act that was going on, because they had seen it before at their own weddings and/or weddings they had attended.

Do you now see why sexual morality is so utterly, critically important, and why the Church has always, and must continue to always preach the extreme importance of sexual morality? Do you now see why sexual perversion is so damaging to mankind? Do you now see why marriage is truly, truly SACRED and not a mere point of civil contract law? Do you see why divorce is evil? Do you see why divorce and remarriage is intolerable? Do you see why sex outside of marriage is gravely sinful? Do you see why masturbation is gravely sinful? Do you see why sodomy and all of the other sexual perversions are so evil that they literally destroy entire civilizations? Do you see why contraception is evil?

Sex between a husband and wife is so incredibly important, so incredibly beautiful and so incredibly sacred not solely because it is the means of creating new life, but first because it is the mystical image of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of God’s infinite love for man. It is one of the most important ways by which humankind can understand the Trinity, and understand the mystical union between God and His Church, and between God and men as individuals.

Oh, and do you now see why the priest must, must, must be a man? In order for this moment of loving condescension of God to man to happen, the human initiator must be a man, leaning over and atop his God who responds and lays in perfect receptivity upon the altar. There must always be that contrast, that juxtaposition of masculine and feminine. If God is going to condescend all the way to the feminine in that moment, then there cannot be a female at the altar, because a woman cannot be the image of the masculine, no matter how tight she wears her crewcut, or how butch her comportment.

Do you think I’m making this up? Take a look at this picture. This is the Baldachin over the Papal Altar at St. Peter’s Basilica. Many large basilicas and cathedrals built before the Church was infiltrated in the 20th century have baldachins. Do you know what a baldachin is? A baldachin is a bed canopy. And sure enough, there it is, right over the Altar – the marriage bed of God and man.

Baldachin

Now for you Catholics who go to a Novus Ordo or “new Mass” parish. Watch your priest at Mass. Watch him at the consecration. Does he put his elbows down? Nope. What is he doing with the Host, and with his eyes? In the last Novus Ordo Mass I saw, the priest held the Host out in front of him, waving It (Him) like he was offering It (Him) to the people, did NOT look at the Host, but rather looked OUT AT THE PEOPLE in full Broadway performance mode as he said the words of consecration. That is like a man who is in the midst of the marital act with his wife talking on the phone to someone else whilst looking at himself in a mirror. Are you squirming? Good. You should be, because it is absolutely awful. If a man doing such a vulgar and narcissistic thing to his wife is disgusting, think how much more disgusting it is when these priests do this to Our Blessed Lord in these Novus Ordo Masses.

The rubric of the elbows-down posture was intentionally stripped from the Mass by the Communist-homosexualist infiltrators in the 1960′s because they hated Our Lord, His Church, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, His Real Presence in the Eucharist, and specifically because of the connection to the marital act. The infiltrators had as a goal the total destruction of sexual morality, because that is the fastest and surest way to demoralize and then destroy a culture. The Communist-homosexualist infiltrators of the Church wanted to convince everyone that sex was no big deal, and if sex is no big deal, then it really can’t be connected to the concept of “sin” , and thus DO WHAT YOU WANT! Contracept! Sleep around! Be a sodomite! Abuse yourself! Hey, it’s not like what you do in private behind closed doors actually matters, right? Wrong. Our entire civilization is going to crash and burn first and foremost because of what people have done “in private behind closed doors” , namely making a complete mockery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Your Novus Ordo priest almost certainly knows nothing about any of this because he was never taught the theology of the Mass in seminary. In fact, as far as I can tell, today’s Novus Ordo priests aren’t taught much of anything in seminary aside from Marxism and pop psychology. The good ones have to self-teach, and even sneak around in order to learn the Traditional Rites. The Novus Ordo priests today are taught a load of Protestant nonsense about the Mass being a MEAL, wherein WE gather around THE TABLE and WORSHIP OURSELVES by eating a symbolic MEAL. Wrong, Father Jazzhands. The altar isn’t a table. It’s a bed, complete with bed linens. And it is NOT SYMBOLIC. The meal aspect is deeply subordinated first and foremost to the SACRIFICIAL aspect, followed by the nuptial aspect. The meal motif is, by far, the least important – but then non-important, pedestrian and even trivial is EXACTLY what the infiltrators want the Mass to be.

If you try to explain this to Father Jazzhands, good luck. You will get a very odd look, and then be dismissed. He doesn’t want to hear anything about this, because it messes with his narcissistic Communist-homosexualist neo-pagan worldview. Same with the Superfun Rockband Church™ denizens and their for-profit macchiato-sipping insipidity. And the lesbian pagan witch nuns? Those sick broads are so far gone, they aren’t even in the same galactic cluster. The vast majority of them self-excommunicated themselves decades and decades ago. I just wish that Rome would make it official.

Finally, to the idiots who read me just because they hate me so much. I delayed writing this piece for YEARS because of you. I would think to myself, “I can’t talk about that, because if some Jimmy Swaggart-cultist drooling mouth-breather reads it, he’ll say that I said that Catholicism is a sex cult or some slack-jawed imbecility like that.” Well, I’m done letting the slack-jawed mouth-breathers dictate the level of discourse. I’m sick of having to not discuss lofty ideas because we all have to pander to the lowest common denominator, which in this culture is about as low as humanity can possibly go. How would I feel if someone said to me, “I have some incredible information that could potentially change your life and make the difference between heaven and hell for you, but I can’t tell you because a stupid person might overhear and misunderstand it.” If that was the standard, the world would be silent.

Nope. No more. You stupid people, by all means, send me as much hate mail as you would like. Tell me what a nympho-pervert, or an under-sexed harpy I am. Go ahead. I’ll cherish every one.

To the priest and seminarian readers, put your elbows down, gentlemen, and take good care of Him up there.

And you MUST explain this to people. Like the Ethiopian with St. Philip, how will they ever know unless someone explains it to them? Stop being afraid and TELL THEM.

Here is an instructional video showing the details of the consecration in the Tridentine Rite, just so you can clearly see it.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2013/10/25/why-priests-can-only-ever-be-men-ann-barnhardt/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

20 comments on “WHY PRIESTS CAN ONLY EVER BE MEN….Ann Barnhardt

  1. Got just so far and then……………

    Well, they come and they go, don’t they? She’s a better cattle futures trader than she is an amateur theologian.

    I know she has many fans and she’s a vibrant sort, for sure. But that “feminine side” hooey smacks of Beam-Me-Up-Scotty Hahn’s heretical imagination run amok.

  2. Actually, it is a LOT worse than I first thought, following a re-read.

    Good God in Heaven! I thought she was edgy but this is pathological!

  3. I was taught that in order for a sacrament to be valid, it had to have the right matter and form. We must use what Christ used when the sacrament was insituted. For example, water was used when Christ was baptized and the scripture had water used for cleansing so water must be used for baptism, not milk or any other liquid because it would not be valid matter. Only bread and grape wine can be used for the Mass because that is what Christ used. Marriage, in order to be valid and accepted by the church must be between a man and a woman for the right matter of the sacrament. So, since Christ only had men for the apostles and since the apostles ordained only men, that is the valid matter of the sacrament. Women could not say a valid Mass no matter how well they said it because the sacraments are not a social issue but a theological issue and we must do it the way Christ did. It had nothing to do with culture because Christ was counter cultural when he declared Himself the Son of God. He stirred up the sanhedren something fierce so He could have appointed women if He wanted to but He did not. Also, the priest is supposed to be an alter Christus. All this has been set up by the church and we are not supposed to change it. Besides, it would split the church and there would be many who would continue the correct way of doing things and the dissenters would find themselves in another religion of their own. I would never follow the woman priest thing, anyway. I would go with the conservatives and leave the others to themselves.

  4. I also … got just so far and then……………exhaustion.
    Our Lord—Christ the priest, the intercessor—is a man, a chap, a bloke, a male. A female Alter Christus is not invalid, she is an absurdity.
    All Ann needs is a tennis ball in her mouth and she’d be perfect … to my star struck gaze.

  5. I got to “The man introduces his body …” and had enough. Is Ann a JPII aficionado? I would have thought otherwise. This is TOB tripe a la Chris West, i.e., sex in the image of God, sacraments in the image of sex.

    I like Ann. I hope she meets a nice guy and settles down. Seriously.

    • That poor, guy, Cyprian. That poor guy. I’m not sure even McClintock, Gunny Highway and Sean Connery – combined! – could handle her!

      Much of what she talks about (on other topics, not the one described above, of course ) makes some sense to some folks within some circles. So, with that, comes a particular sense of communication “protocol” when she’s addressing her own peeps. And she’s a super-duper-hyper-Type A person; when she gets on a tear, it’s Katie bar the door!

      She is ultra-bright and facile with expression, so there is a great future for her in writing polemics and nudging folks on to the sound conclusions she has made along the way that do meet the test of common sense.

      That said, I hope someone with real experience in debunking the TOB/Hahn cult’s disgusting semi-porno imagery can get to her – quickly! I think she is intellectually honest and would admit she stepped into a very deep pothole this time.

      • That poor guy … LOL! I didn’t say it. No. Ann would know her place. She’s on the receiving end (see above), like Jerry Rice. If hubby tells her to shut up, then that’s that, right? My wife understands that. Oh, wait …

  6. I agree with Deacon Augustine that the male priesthood is a fatherhood representing God. Psychologist , Dr.C.G. Jung wrote that the image of God in the unconscious is represented in dreams as a male figure for Jews and Christians; it is only in the dreams of some Pagans that the God figure was represented as a woman. It seems that symbols are very important in how we relate on deep levels to the outer world , to other people, and especially to God, and his makes the male person appropriate for
    ordination to the priesthood.

  7. Yes,gpmtrad, it is amazing how often Dr. Jung’s works support Catholic teaching, although his intent was the quest for knowledge and treatment of mental illness.

    For a Catholic Psychologist’s prospective on the influence of a Father figure, or lack of one on the formation of religious faith in individuals, I recommend; “Faith of the Fatherless” by Dr. Paul Vitz.

  8. It’s amazing how well Jung’s method has emptied the convents since V-II. You need look no further than the LCWR to see that many of the “Sisters” are affiliated with Jung Institute. Whether Jung intended the destruction of reality in the mind I don’t know, but his methods have proven more useful than even the KGB or CIA could have imagined.

  9. JMJT, just so’s ya know ( and there would be other way than if I tell you ) I am a very strong opponent of psychoanalysis, whether Freudian, Jungian or its latest convoluted derivative – Bergoglian Happy Dancin’.

    Years ago, during a time when a dear friend had fallen under the clutches of a shrink, I had conversations with Dr. Thomas Szasz, author or “The Myth of Mental Illness”. We agreed that, while true that emotion can overcome reason in crisis situations, the realdifference between a good, wise friend and a shrink was you only had to pay large sums to the latter. By the way, after recovering from shrink dependency, my very brilliant friend took on exceptional challenges and bested them all, to the delight of all observers.

    Szasz, an Hungarian ( thus, heir to the most rigorous educational system in the world ), classified “modern psychiatry” in the same genus as alchemy and astrology and fought to keep shrinks out of courtrooms as “experts” since there was no science whatsoever to back up their claims.

    There are, certainly, known pathologies of the brain and those do necessitate the use of surgical and medical intervention, when appropriate.

    But I will posit that 99% of the folks involved in “chronic mental dysfunction” of just about any sort you’d care to name are: 1. autosuggestive; 2. afraid of something and 3. running away from responsibility.

    Actually, 100% of mankind has those exact problems, at least the temptation to fall into them.

    All of which can be overcome by the Sacraments, the Scriptures, a vigorous prayer life and simply forgetting about your ************ self for extended periods of time.

    However, to be fair, I will give Sigmund Freud credit for his attitude when the Nazis showed up at his home and confiscated valuables in the name of the Reich. He was ill and in bed but was called after the goons left.

    He told family members that it was, in the end, really nothing at all.

    I admit Freud and Jung probably did have the interest of humanity in mind for much of what they did. And, with both being deprived of the Christian faith, it is also understandable that they were themselves easy prey for intellectual temptations against which Catholic doctrine might otherwise have inoculated them.

  10. Sorry …. “NO other way than if I tell you….”

  11. I think some of you got a bit far afield from the topic of the all male priesthood.
    I do not think it necessary to evaluate the whole field of psychology and its effect on the world and confused nuns to say that one particular finding of one particular psychologist offers support of the Church’s teaching re one of the Sacraments.
    Truth from any field of science will not contradict truths from the Catholic Faith.
    I would still recommend Catholic psychologist, Dr. Paul Vitz book , “Faith of the Fatherless” as being related to the topic of the need for a Father figure in developing one’s Faith in God.

  12. I think some of you got a bit far afield

    No better place than on AQ. But really, it’s about reality. Central to traditionalism is our clinging to reality. Modernism is the most formidable assault on reality ever devised. When you bring up one of the champions of unreality (judging the tree by the fruits), you’re bound to get some discussion.

  13. Cyprian is absolutely right. Amtrak sends its accident prevention teams to AQ’s secret HQs facilities in Lompoc quarterly to study derailing phenomenae! (Of course, only a fraction of them arrive without slings, bandages or on crutches. And only one in five is ever on time.)

    But seriously, JMJT, no one would question to central importance of a solid father-son, father-daughter relationship to individual and social development. It was the stuff of great literature as far back as the Greeks and right up through Jane Austen and on to the present day. It’s settled matter.

    Long before little Siggy or Carl ever stopped wearing diapers, the Church and the social order, in all 24 time zones, functioned quite well without their “theories”.

  14. Not very long ago the world got along well without computers, that is not to say they have nothing to contribute. What we have to do as Catholics is to take the good that comes to us through the arts, sciences and technology and not get involved with, or refute the bad things that may also be offered. Aquinas did this with Aristotle’s works. Obstetrics does this by operating on babies with severe anomalies while they are still in the womb instead of aborting them as some doctors do.

  15. Fair enough.

    As long as there is hard science behind it, demonstrable, incontrovertible evidence upon which to base it, we should always at least look at it.

    But that was Dr. Szasz’s point – there is NONE of that in psychoanalysis. Zip. Doodad. Squat.

  16. Man, when I can’t even spell doodah – time to get another cuppa coffee!

Leave a Reply