Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) 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. (John Paul II: ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS)
When the One True God of the Universe was worshipped only by Abram and a small group of people who came from Chaldea the priest who offered sacrifice was the Father of the Family. Never adminstered to liturgically by female hands.
Then that same God manifested himself to Moses, and revealed to him how he was to be worshipped by the Chosen People. Aaron and his sons were to be the only ministers at the Altar. Never adminstered to liturgically by female hands.
Then that same God came down to Earth to save us sinners, and took the name Yeshua ben Yousef (Jesus son of Joseph). He established a Church with many disciples, but only 12 Apostles. He established the Sacraments, and gave them to the Apostles, and to their spiritual descendents (Bishops) in perpetuity. Yet, Christ Himself only ordained 12 Apostles, all of whom were men. This same God was: Never adminstered to liturgically by female hands.
Hallowedground 
Great as ever, especially the first of Christ the High Priest and the fourth one of the episcopal consecration in a relatively modern church. On the seventh from the top however: I really have nothing at all against lace, especially if it is of good quality, but it should be the adornment of the vestment (surplice, alb etc.). A surplice entirely of lace as seen here (and unfortunately worn, I think, by some of the Canons of St. John Cantius) really looks awful.
Gregor, I agree, the full lace looks a little too much like a negligee.
“…and took the name Yeshua ben Yousef (Jesus son of Joseph).”
Where is this quote from? Am I mistaken in thinking Jesus never called Himself “ben Yousef” but rather “the Son of Man” or some other title, never confusing His adopted father with His actual Father? I think it was only others that called Him “son of Joseph” and some Jews today continue to do that.
It might also be worth mentioning that at the time of Jesus, many pagan sects had priestesses. The claim that Jesus was somehow boxed in to a cultural rigidness that excluded women from being thought of as worthy to offer sacrifice is just silly. Jesus broke cultural conventions left and right. If He’d have wanted to expand the role of women in His Church, He could have. But He didn’t. Those that push for women’s ordination today make the mistake of taking their cues from the secular culture rather than from Christ’s actions.
Just my $0.02
Oh, and a question… I assume on the holy card (first image in this post) that the figure to the right of the altar is Aaron, brother of Moses. Who is on the left?
I personally, love the lace. It has always been traditional and adds more beauty of the wearer, which in turn does its part in adding more beauty in the House of Our God and for God.
Superb!
Jesuit John: Good point about the “cultural rigidness”. The figure to the left seems to be Melchizedek, who you also see on the third picture from above as a statue in St. Maria Maggiore.
Ken: Is that cardinal Verdier on the 5th picture from the top?
“…and took the name Yeshua ben Yousef (Jesus son of Joseph).”
Where is this quote from…?
Awesome as ever ^^
Question from 2 comments: “Were is this quote from? Yeshua ben Yousef (Jesus son of Joseph).”
Answer: My term. I used it to emphatize the Reality of the Incarnation, God becoming a Man, starting out as we all do, as a baby, then a child… Well, think about it. When He was a little kid, what would His neighbors have called Him? Jesus (Yeshua, Joshua) was a pretty commonly used name.
He never referred to Himself as such in Scripture, but I’d guess others during the course of His earthly life did refer to Him with a surname.
Did Jews use surnames at the time of Christ? Well, Christ did say: “Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jona (Son of John) for flesh and blood…”.
Jesuit John (2nd question): Melchizedek, of the older, mystical Priesthood offering bread and wine.
Leo: Sharp as always! That is indeed Cardinal Vernier.
It was the “and took the name” part I had trouble with, but I think I am just being petty.
“but I’d guess others during the course of His earthly life did refer to Him with a surname”
You are right. That is very likely.
I have more questions. Melchizedek gets a halo and a crown while Aaron does not, appearing more like the Jewish high priest. Why is that?
Thanks for the images. I come to your sight often for inspiration for my own artwork. Keep up the great work!
John, You might be right, perhaps I should have said “others called Him”, instead of “He took the Name”…
Melchizedek gets a higher status due to his being before the Priesthood of Aaron. Also, the pre-figurement of the offering of bread and wine with Christ. Also, the mysterious figure of Melchizedek, mentioned without lineage in the scripture, though most people were introduced with “the son of..” (especially if they were priests). He was also greater than Abraham, as Abraham offered him tithes of his wars with the kings.
Some believe that he was Sem son of Noah.