Women Can Be Priests
Reply to post

Can women be icons of Christ?

Page: < 12345.. > >> Showing page 2 of 15 - Powered by APG vNext Trial
Author
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 05:18:36 (permalink)
Joseph,

I have to agree.  The article shows an openness on the part of the Orthodox Church to women priests. 

The book looks good and I think I am going to order it.

If we were once one with the Orthodox, their understanding of the faith cannot be easily dismissed.  They've restored women's place in Holy Orders through the ordained diaconate.  The article you've shared points out their recognition that the Holy Spirit works among the faithful...just as much as she does within Church leadership.   Sensus fidelium....

This, from the article, shows the great respect that is shown to the spiritual understanding and questioning of every member of the faith community.  Something we can learn from?  Something that needs to be restored or more completely honoured within our own Catholic community?:



No author in the present volume calls for the ordination of women as bishops and priests. All authors agree, however, that the greatest care must be exercised in dealing with this complicated and delicate issue. The Orthodox Church has no infallible magisterium. Church leaders and theologians may be wrong. The Holy Spirit acts within the whole body of believers bringing to remembrance what Christ teaches and guiding the faithful into all truth. If but one member of the Church is inspired to argue from the Bible and Church Tradition that certain women may be qualified to serve as bishops and priests, he or she must be heard with dignity and respect. Those who believe that only certain believing men are qualified for these ordained ministries must be heard in the same manner and spirit.

With Christ's peace and love,
is the path becoming more illuminated for you?
Therese
post edited by Therese - 2007/01/20 05:38:52
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 05:20:01 (permalink)
ps  the flu is back. nasty bug. lots of rest and fluids. I'll be back with some gusto!
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 05:24:28 (permalink)
Joseph,
 
Setting all that you understand about Tradition, Jesus's choices aside, do you have any problem with women in positions of leadership and authority?
 
Without falling back on 'Tradition' as an argument (which really is a flimsy argument if its the only one you've got going,) what prohibits women from being icons of Christ?  What is it about women -- from your individual perspective -- that makes them incapable of reflecting the spirit of Christ to the world?
 
Is it fear of change?  Is it a psychic fear of women? What is it?
 
In peace,
Therese....going back to bed for now.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 16:18:08 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

 The Orthodox church stands in the tradition of accepting women priests. Read the article. J you are incorrect.

 
Point out to me where in the article it says that the Orthodox have had women priests.
 
Until you can do that, you are still incorrect. The burden of proof is on you.
 
J
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 16:31:04 (permalink)
Hello Joseph,
 
I hope you are well.  How do you respond to my question in Post 23.
 
Setting aside what you understand to be Church doctrine, do you have a problem with women in positions of authority and leadership? If so, why?
 
In peace,
Therese
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 16:58:16 (permalink)
Let's go through the article together:
 








Women and the Priesthood
[PB-WOPRHO]

Thomas Hopko, ed.










Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge


More than fifteen years have passed since the original publication of Women and the Priesthood. This new edition presents the essays of the authors who are no longer with us, Fathers Alexander Schmemann and Nicholas Afanasiev, and Prof. Georges Barrois, together with the editor's reflections on the debate at that time. The living contributors to the first edition have all written new essays. An article by Dr. Nonna Verna Harrison is also now included.
The authors search for explanations and reasons why the Orthodox Church has never in its history ordained women to serve as bishops and priests. All agree that the Church has women deacons, and that careful consideration must be given to this office as it existed in the past and as it may once again exist in the Orthodox Church.
No author in the present volume calls for the ordination of women as bishops and priests. All authors agree, however, that the greatest care must be exercised in dealing with this complicated and delicate issue. The Orthodox Church has no infallible magisterium. Church leaders and theologians may be wrong. The Holy Spirit acts within the whole body of believers bringing to remembrance what Christ teaches and guiding the faithful into all truth. If but one member of the Church is inspired to argue from the Bible and Church Tradition that certain women may be qualified to serve as bishops and priests, he or she must be heard with dignity and respect. Those who believe that only certain believing men are qualified for these ordained ministries must be heard in the same manner and spirit. Whatever one thinks of the thoughts of the contributors, this new edition of Women and the Priesthood serves as a model for the debate among the Orthodox.
ISBN 0-88141-146
 
the Orthodox Church has never in its history ordained women to serve as bishops and priests.
1) The Orthodox Church has never had ordained women as bishops or priests.
 
So the statement made here:  "The Orthodox church stands in the tradition of accepting women priests and Apostles." To which I was referring to by posting the article, is wrong. 
 
No author in the present volume calls for the ordination of women as bishops and priests.
2) The authors do not call for women priests or bishops. 
 
So regardless of anything else that the advertisement for the book might say, these authors do not believe that women should be priests or bishops.
 
All agree that the Church has women deacons, and that careful consideration must be given to this office as it existed in the past and as it may once again exist in the Orthodox Church.
3) They state that there were women deacons in the Church
 
However, they also qualified the "office" by making reference to how it existed in the past. It must not be assumed that this "office" was equivalent to the deaconate of Holy Orders as held by men.
 
The Orthodox Church has no infallible magisterium.
4) No infallible magisterium.
 
We do have an infallible magisterium, so what the Orthodox theologians might say is of very little importance when it confronts those definitive teachings of the Catholic Church.
 
I believe that Christ established the Catholic Church, and that the Orthodox Churches have left communion with Rome. If I did not believe this, then I would be Orthodox.
 
 
J
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 17:23:05 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Therese

Joseph,

Setting all that you understand about Tradition, Jesus's choices aside, do you have any problem with women in positions of leadership and authority?

Without falling back on 'Tradition' as an argument (which really is a flimsy argument if its the only one you've got going,) what prohibits women from being icons of Christ?  What is it about women -- from your individual perspective -- that makes them incapable of reflecting the spirit of Christ to the world?

Is it fear of change?  Is it a psychic fear of women? What is it?

In peace,
Therese....going back to bed for now.

 
Therese, I am very happy that you are here. You truly are a breath of fresh air.
 
What do you mean by "positions of leadership and authority?" In the secular sphere? I don't care. Whoever is best qualified. However, I would hasten to add that stay-at-home moms do an incredible work, and I believe that families and raising children are vital for a good society.
In the Church? Depends on what specific position you are asking about, and how faithful to the Church's teachings they are.
 
I don't believe that appealing to 'Tradition' is a flimsy argument. There are reasons why 'Tradtion' becomes what it is. It was oral tradition which gave us the Scriptures. I would agree that appealing to 'Tradition' should not be the sole argument, but why it is 'Tradition.'
 
What is it about women -- from your individual perspective -- that makes them incapable of reflecting the spirit of Christ to the world? Is it fear of change?  Is it a psychic fear of women? What is it?

 
I disagree with the nature of the question. I don't believe that women are incapable of reflecting the spirit of Christ to the world...we are all called to do this in Baptism.
 
I don't have a psychic fear of women (well, I don't want to piss-off my wife). I was raised by a woman. I was educated by a majority of women. I have three sisters. I am married to a woman. And my daughter(s) will eventually be a woman.
 
J
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 19:41:52 (permalink)
Hello Joseph,

Thanks for the 'breath of fresh air' comment.  Looking forward to some real fresh air.  This flu bug is a nasty one.  I am feeling quite a bit better today.

I have to say I find it odd. On the one hand, you talk about respect for women. For instance, you encourage your wife to pursue an education.

On the other hand, despite Pope Benedict saying (since he has been Pope) that women must find their way to their rightful place in the Church,  and that 'we should not stand in their way,' every single time a door opens for women in our conversation, you try to slam it shut.

What's up?  I don't understand what the underlying dynamic is about.

A theologian's job is both to defend and to seek the truth. Were this not so, how did we get from a pro-slavery teaching in the Church to the one we have now:  slavery is abhorent to the dignity of the human person?

Someone had to be asking questions - yes?  The change didn't just 'poof' out of thin air.

Benedict endorses the view that if all you have is 'Tradition' to make an argument, you are not necessarily standing on solid ground.

Consider this: 

Yet, as Joseph Ratzinger noted in his commentary on Dei Verbum, "Not everything that exists in the Church must for that reason be also a legitimate tadition; in other words, not every tradition that arises in the Church is a true celebration and keeping present of the mystery of Christ. There is a distorting, as well as a legitimate, tradition.... Consequently, tradition must not be considered only affirmatively, but also critically. " A traditional practice that seemed appropriate in the past may no longer be appropriate in a new cultural context. A traditional conviction, when subjected to critical examination, may be recognized as based on cultural attitudes rather than on divine revelation. It may become clear that it was not really a tradition of authentic Christian faith. The Church has never taken antiquity to be the sole criterion of an authoritative Tradition.



I enjoy our dialogue.  You make me think.  Yet with all respect, I can't help but perceive a slightly negative view of women.  Is it just me? When I try to subject 'tradition' to a critical examination, you assert that I am anti-catholic.  Is this because I engage in a critical examination of our faith?  Am I not entitled to do this?  What, deep down,  are you afraid I might find out?

I prove virtually conclusively that women were ordained to holy orders as deacons and you immediately impose a limit on these women: "It must not be assumed that this "office" was equivalent to the deaconate of Holy Orders as held by men."

Instead of seeing a way for women, every open door is slamming shut?

Why do you struggle so much with calling a spade a spade?  I've proved that:
  • Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallibly made
  • women were ordained as deacons in the early Church
  • the Catholic Church is struggling to overcome its mysoginistic ways
  • we are heirs to an unfortunate conditioned thinking about the role of women (do I need to repeat -- JPII?)

When we discuss:
  • the manner in which Christ related to women
  • the role of the theologian (which discussion you seem to be resisting)
  • the role of sensus fidelium (which discussion you seem to be resisiting)
  • the changing roles of women in the Church -- establishing that Tradition in this respect has not, in application been a hard and fast rule



I detect a certain quality of 'stubborness' on your part in refusing to accede to the fact that what we are doing is right and proper and that in fact, the times they are a changing.

This is what makes me suspicious I may be facing an 'anti-woman'  element.   I am not suggesting it is a conscious thing...but given all we have been discussing, there does seem to be a peculiar colour to our dialogue.

Could this possibly be true? If so, why do you think it is so? Are we heirs to that unfortunate conditioning that JPII spoke about?

Attempting to discern,


In Christ's peace,
Therese
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 20:29:56 (permalink)
why is it so critical that women be 'out?'
 
why can't women be icons of Christ?  even in the priesthood?
 
Therese
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 20:46:23 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Therese

Hello Joseph,

Thanks for the 'breath of fresh air' comment.  Looking forward to some real fresh air.  This flu bug is a nasty one.  I am feeling quite a bit better today.

I have to say I find it odd. On the one hand, you talk about respect for women and that you encourage your wife to pursue and education, etc, etc.

Yet on the other hand, despite the fact that Pope Benedict himself has said that women must find their way to their rightful place in the Church, every single time there is an open door to this, you try to slam it shut.

 
I disagree Therese, where do I "slam" shut the doors? To the priesthood? That is an impossibility as the Church has professed. Even Pope Benedict has said this much. Where else do I slam shut the doors?
 

I don't quite understand where this is coming from.

A theologian's job is both to defend and to seek the truth. Were this not so, how did we get from a pro-slavery teaching in the Church to the one we have now:  slavery is abhorent to the dignity of the human person?

Someone had to be asking questions - yes?  The change didn't just 'poof' out of thin air.

Slavery was never a defined doctrine of the Church, the Church has tolerated certain types of slavery since the times of the Eary Church...even in the New Testament...so long as there wasn't an abuse (gradually defined) of slaves. Now the Church has rightfully recognized, in my opinion, that even 'benevolent slavery' is against the dignity of the human person. Keep in mind, there are all kinds of slavery...even some that are self-assumed, something akin to a contract. We in the Western World tend to view things ethnocentrically, in particular with this issue, slavery reminds us of the racial slave trade from Africa.

Benedict backs me up when I say that if all you have is 'Tradition' to make an argument, you are not standing on solid ground.

Consider this: 




Yet, as Joseph Ratzinger noted in his commentary on Dei Verbum, "Not everything that exists in the Church must for that reason be also a legitimate tadition; in other words, not every tradition that arises in the Church is a true celebration and keeping present of the mystery of Christ. There is a distorting, as well as a legitimate, tradition.... Consequently, tradition must not be considered only affirmatively, but also critically. " A traditional practice that seemed appropriate in the past may no longer be appropriate in a new cultural context. A traditional conviction, when subjected to critical examination, may be recognized as based on cultural attitudes rather than on divine revelation. It may become clear that it was not really a tradition of authentic Christian faith. The Church has never taken antiquity to be the sole criterion of an authoritative Tradition.



What I wrote is not in disagreement with this.

With all respect because I do enjoy our dialogue, I can't help but perceive a slightly negative view of women.  When I try to subject 'tradition' to a critical examination and you say that I am anti-catholic.  Is that because I am engaging in a critical examination of it?  This is something I am entitled to do.

How do you conclude that I have a negative view of women because I have rightfully said that you have an anti-Catholic agenda in your support of women priests? Would I also be said to have a negative view of women because I would tell a woman that she had an anti-mathematical agenda in her obstinate denial that 2+2=4? If you hold views contrary to Catholic teaching, does that not make you opposed to Catholic teaching? And in being opposed to Catholic teaching, wouldn't that make you an anti-Catholic? At least in those issues, right?

I show you where women were ordained to holy orders as deacons and you say: "It must not be assumed that this "office" was equivalent to the deaconate of Holy Orders as held by men."

I understand; however, it must be noted that in the article/advertisement they made a difference through implication, saying that careful consideration needed to be given as to how that "office" existed. By making this statement, there is no way we can infer from it that that office is equivalent to the male diaconate.

Why do you struggle so much with calling a spade a spade?  I've proved that:

Be careful with using that saying, I've been told that it contains racial overtones.

  • Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallibly made
  • women were ordained as deacons in the early Church
  • the Catholic Church is struggling to overcome its mysoginistic ways
  • we are heirs to an unfortunate conditioned thinking about the role of women (do I need to repeat -- JPII?)


OS was not infallibly made because the Church had already taught this via the ordinary and universal magisterium...Pope Benedict had made this clear. Women deacons were not equivalent to the diaconate of Holy Orders. Misogynistic is not altogether correct, there have always been women who were very influential in the Church, but I would agree, women's talents have not been fully utilized..but that holds true for the laity as a whole.
 
None of this has anything to do with the role of the priesthood. Even John Paul II stated that:
 
"This zeal will be manifested in supporting the dignity of women. and every legitimate freedom that is consonant with their human nature and their womanhood. The Bishop is called upon to oppose any and all discrimination of women by reason of sex. In this regard he must likewise endeavour to explain as cogently as he can that the Church’s teaching on the exclusion of women from priestly ordination is extraneous to the issue of discrimination and that it is linked rather to Christ’s own design for his priesthood. The Bishop must give proof of his pastoral ability and leadership by withdrawing all support from individuals or groups who in the name of progress, justice or compassion, or for any other alleged reason, promote the ordination of women to the priesthood.
In so doing, such individuals or groups are in effect damaging the very dignity of women that they profess to promote and advance. All efforts made against the truth are destined to produce not only failure but also acute personal frustration. Whatever the Bishop can do to prevent this failure and frustration by explaining the truth is an act not only of pastoral charity but of prophetic leadership."
 
 

When we discuss:
  • the manner in which Christ related to women
  • the role of the theologian (which discussion you seem to be resisting)
  • the role of sensus fidelium (which discussion you seem to be resisiting)
  • the changing roles of women in the Church -- establishing that Tradition in this respect has not, in application been a hard and fast rule


1) Read above, I am in keeping with Christ's purpose.
2) I have already dealt with this:
Code of Canon Law
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
3) As above.
4) ??? Irrelevant...look above.

I detect a certain quality of 'stubborness' on your part in refusing to accede to the fact that what we are doing is right and proper and that in fact, the times they are a changing.

Incorrect...read above.

This is what makes me suspect I am facing an 'anti-woman'  element.   I am not suggesting it is a conscious thing...but given all we have been discussing, there does seem to be a peculiar colour to your posts.

Could this possibly be true? Why do you think it is so?

In Christ's peace,
Therese


 
So basically, J is against women priests because of a,b and c; therefore, J is against women period?
I am for the dignity and equality of women. These social aspects of dignity are foriegn to the priesthood.
 
J
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 22:24:08 (permalink)
OS was not infallibly made because the Church had already taught this via the ordinary and universal magisterium...Pope Benedict had made this clear.


Joseph,

This is not an accurate statement and I am calling you on it. We've talked about this before (Beat This thread.) Unless you've got a new angle to present on what we've discussed, it is of no benefit to try to get this wagon rolling. Five flat tires...it just won't roll.

Conclusively, there are only three ways a teaching can be infallibly made. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (the statement by JPII which says women cannot be priests) strikes out on all three counts. As a refresher course, the three roads to infallibility are:
  1. by solemn ex cathedra teaching (in other words, the Pope speaking alone. This method of proclaiming teaching infallibly is very seldom used...and for good reason. Development of theology in the Church is not meant to be a one man show.)
  2. by solemn declaration of a valid ecumenical council - eg Vatican II
  3. by a teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium.


JPII tried to assert that OS was infallible by virtue of his role as Pope (ex cathedra teaching.)

Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was, now Pope Benedict) directly contradicted this when he said: no, OS is not an ex cathedra teaching. He says it is infallibly made through the ordinary and universal magisterium (which was subsequently never refuted by JPII.)

We agree, OS is not the subject of a valid ecumenical council.

Current position of OS: Cardinal Ratzinger, the so called guardian of the faith contradiction with the Pope.

So what is OS?:
  • infallible because JPII says it's so through the office of the Pope?
  • infallible because Ratzinger says it's not through the office of the Pope, but through the Ordinary and Universal magisterium?

Unequivocally and clearly established as infallible?

Recall our Code of Canon Law which says:

749(3): No doctrine is to be understood as infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.

OS -- clearly established infallibility?

Are you suggesting that in spite of the confusion surrounding what OS is, it is clearly established infallible teaching?

I conclusively showed in thread, Beat This -- and you agreed -- OS is not infallible teaching. Why? OS is not ex cathedra teaching. It is not made through a valid ecumenical council. It does not meet the requirements for infallibility through the ordinary and universal magisterium. (Remember: the five conditions were not satisfied in OS.)

I rest: Categorically impossible to say that OS is an infallible teaching of the Church.

The most that can be said is that until now, our tradition has been that only men have been ordained. That's all that can be said.

As Pope Benedict and I collectively point out, if all you have is 'tradtion to rely on,' you are not standing on solid ground. I reiterate Benedict's commentary on Dei Verbum:

Not everything that exists in the Church must for that reason be also a legitimate tradition; in other words, not every tradition that arises in the Church is a true celebration and keeping present of the mystery of Christ. There is a distorting, as well as a legitimate, tradition.... Consequently, tradition must not be considered only affirmatively, but also critically. " A traditional practice that seemed appropriate in the past may no longer be appropriate in a new cultural context. A traditional conviction, when subjected to critical examination, may be recognized as based on cultural attitudes rather than on divine revelation. It may become clear that it was not really a tradition of authentic Christian faith. The Church has never taken antiquity to be the sole criterion of an authoritative Tradition.


So, at most, we can say we've got a practice. There are so many doubts and questions about what OS tries to say, it is impossible to assert with any integrity that it is settled teaching.* It's impossible to do.

Agreed?

And according to Benedict, it is proper and just to critically assess whether traditions of the Church are true celebrations keeping present the mystery of Christ. Quite just and proper and correct to be discussing the role of women in the priesthood of the Catholic Church.

In peace,

Therese

*For instance, when he was alive, Cardinal Flahiff of Winnipeg vocally questioned -- in the Vatican-- women's exclusion from the priesthood. There is no agreement on the teaching. The world's bishops have never been given an opportunity to collectively discuss. In fact, until the end of the twentieth century, no one was discussing it much at all.
post edited by Therese - 2007/01/22 17:04:25
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 22:49:43 (permalink)
If you hold views contrary to Catholic teaching, does that not make you opposed to Catholic teaching? And in being opposed to Catholic teaching, wouldn't that make you an anti-Catholic? At least in those issues, right?

 
Joseph,
 
I don't agree with this. Who is drawing the line in the sand?  You? 
 
If something jars my conscience, as a member of the faith, haven't I a positive duty to speak up?  Is this being opposed to the faith of the Church? If I had spoken up against slavery at the time the Church said slavery was ok, would you have labelled me anti Catholic?
 
Recall an example of how Church teaching flipped back and forth on the subject of slavery:
 
1224-1274 AD: St.Thomas Aquinas defends slavery as instituted by God in punishment for sin, and justified as being part of the ‘right of nations’ and natural law. Children of a slave mother are rightly slaves even though they have not committed personal sin! (Quoted by many later Popes).
1435 AD: Pope Eugenius IV condemns the indiscriminate enslavement of natives in the Canary Islands, but does not condemn slavery as such. 
1454 AD: Through the bull Romanus Pontifex, Pope Nicholas V authorises the king of Portugal to enslave all the Saracen and pagan peoples his armies may conquer.
1493 AD: Pope Alexander VI authorises the King of Spain to enslave non-Christians of the Americas who are at war with Christian powers.
1537 AD: Pope Paul III condemns the indiscriminate enslavement of Indians in South America.
1548 AD: The same Pope Paul III confirms the right of clergy and laity to own slaves.
 
You say 'slavery was not a dogmatic teaching of the Church" and therefore could be discussed.
 
I've proved OS is not 'dogmatic teaching' yet you still insist it cannot be discussed.
 
What's up?  If not anti-woman, what is it?  Really, I want to understand where this opposition comes from. Why must women be 'out?'
 
In Christ's peace,
Therese
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 22:53:07 (permalink)
I don't believe that women are incapable of reflecting the spirit of Christ to the world...we are all called to do this in Baptism.

 
Joseph,
 
I agree with what you say here.
 
How do you support the arbitrary drawing of the line:
 
women can receive the sacrament of Baptism but not of Holy Orders.
women can have six sacraments.  men can have seven.
what is that women lack?  what is it that makes women capable of reflecting Christ in Baptism but not in Holy Orders?  what is it?
 
Perplexed,
Therese
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 23:03:02 (permalink)
Joseph,

You provided a link to a speech given by JPII in 1983 -- almost 25 years old.

If what he means when he says:




In so doing, such individuals or groups are in effect damaging the very dignity of women that they profess to promote and advance. All efforts made against the truth are destined to produce not only failure but also acute personal frustration.



that women and men are not identical, then I agree with him.  There are differences between men and women.  To make a woman identical to a man is impossible to do. 

Having said this, there is nothing that you've shown or said, nothing that JPII or Benedict have shown or said, which establishes why women are incapable of performing the role of priest.

Pedro came the closest when he said that if the priest takes the role of Christ, and if 'masculinity' went right into Christ's soul, then an argument could be made that priests must be male.  With all respect to Pedro, I still haven't seen anything  produced to substantiate this.  I am assuming he must be away.  Our discussion in Why Women Don't Get Vocations to the Priesthood was left dangling...waiting for his reply.

Can someone please get to the core of it:  say something that appeals to reason as to why women cannot be part of Holy Orders.

So far:  I have heard zero in the way of any argument that could be described as even coming close to convincing on the side of the debate that defends 'no women in the priesthood.'

In fact, if we get started, I can think of dozens of reasons as to why women as women (as opposed to being duplicates of men) should be part of Holy Orders.  The world needs women just as much as Holy Orders needs women.

I am not a man.  I am a woman.  Christ came to take on humanity.  In my humanity, I therefore can be an icon of Christ just as much as any man can.  If you appeal to anything, it must be to my reason and my faith as to why this cannot be so.  I present myself in my fullness as a woman as a candidate for priesthood.  What is about my feminity that makes me an objectionable candidate?
 
What makes me incapable of being an icon of Christ in the priesthood?

In Christ's peace,

Therese
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 23:26:09 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Therese

OS was not infallibly made because the Church had already taught this via the ordinary and universal magisterium...Pope Benedict had made this clear.


Joseph,

This  is not an accurate statement and I am calling you on it. We've talked about this before (Beat This thread.)  Unless you've got a new angle to present on what we've discussed, it is of no benefit to try to get this wagon.  Five flat tires...it just won't roll.

Conclusively, there are only three ways a teaching can be infallibly made.  Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (the statement by JPII which says women cannot be priests) strikes out on all three counts.   As a refresher course, the three roads to infallibility are:
  1. by solemn ex cathedra teaching (in other words, the Pope speaking alone.  This method of proclaiming teaching infallibly is very seldom used...and for good reason. Development of theology in the Church is not meant to be a one man show.)
  2. by solemn declaration of a valid ecumenical council  - eg Vatican II
  3. by a teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium.


JPII tried to assert that OS was infallible by virtue of his role as Pope (ex cathedra teaching.)

Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was, now Pope Benedict) directly contradicted this when he said:  no, OS is not an ex cathedra teaching.  He says it is infallibly made through the ordinary and universal magisterium (which was subsequently never refuted by JPII.)

We agree, OS is not the subject of a valid ecumenical council.
 
Current position of OS:  Cardinal Ratzinger, the so called guardian of the faith in direct contradiction the Pope.

So what is OS?:
  • infallible because JPII says it's so through the office of the Pope?
  • infallible because Ratzinger says it's so through the Ordinary and Universal magisterium?


I'm sorry Therese, but you have misrepresented both OS and Cardinal Ratzinger. I understand that you are keeping "goose step" with both the content of this site, and the anti-Catholics who adhere to it, but Cardinal Ratzinger did not contradict the Pope. It is the nature of the Office of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to answer such inquiries into and about Catholic teaching. JPII did not correct Cardinal Ratzinger, so therefore it must be concluded that what Cardinal Ratzinger had stated is JPII's belief as well.

Unequivocally and clearly established as infallible?

Recall our Code of Canon Law which says:

749(3):  No doctrine is to be understood as infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.

The teaching has been clearly established by the nature of it's longstanding tradition. Never in the history of the Church, both East and West, have women's ordination been accepted.
 
Recall, Therese, the Code of Canon Law also states:
 
Can.  1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.
 
So if you want to appeal to the Code of Canon Law, then do so with consistency.

contradiction btn JPII and Ratzinger = clearly established infallibility?

Not so, read above.

Are you suggesting that in spite of the confusion surrounding what OS is, it is clearly established infallible teaching?  
 
I conclusively showed in thread, Beat This -- and you agreed -- OS is not infallible teaching.  Why? OS is not ex cathedra teaching.  It is not made through a valid ecumenical council.  It does not meet the requirements for infallibility through the ordinary and universal magisterium.  (Remember: the five conditions were not satisfied in OS.)

Therese, OS is not the ordinary and universal magisterium, but reflecting the teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium...which made the teaching concerning women priests infallible.
 
I rest:  Categorically impossible to say that OS is an infallible teaching of the Church.

Yes, but as Cardinal Ratzinger has already stated, OS reflects the already infallible teaching clearly know through, "founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium."

The most that can be said is that until now, our tradition has been that only men have been ordained.  That's all that can be said. 

Not so, read above.

As Pop Benedict and I collectively point out, if all you have is 'tradtion to rely on,' you are not standing on solid ground.  I reiterate Benedict's commentary on Dei Verbum:


Not everything that exists in the Church must for that reason be also a legitimate tadition; in other words, not every tradition that arises in the Church is a true celebration and keeping present of the mystery of Christ. There is a distorting, as well as a legitimate, tradition.... Consequently, tradition must not be considered only affirmatively, but also critically. " A traditional practice that seemed appropriate in the past may no longer be appropriate in a new cultural context. A traditional conviction, when subjected to critical examination, may be recognized as based on cultural attitudes rather than on divine revelation. It may become clear that it was not really a tradition of authentic Christian faith. The Church has never taken antiquity to be the sole criterion of an authoritative Tradition.


Therese, just then you misstated, or misunderstood Pope Benedicts words. Pope Benedict said that "Not EVERYTHING," which means that there are other things that do. Besides, the teaching isn't only found in tradition, but as Cardinal Ratzinger has said, it is also founded in Sacred Scripture (there were only male Apostles numbered amongst the "Twelve," and the only bishops in the New Testament were priests.) You cannot change these facts, you can distort them, but you cannot change them.

So, at most, we can say we've got a practice.  There are so many doubts and questions about what OS tries to say, it is impossible to assert with any integrity that it is settled teaching.*  It's impossible to do.

Agreed?

And according to Benedict, it is proper and just to critically assess whether traditions of the Church are true celebration keeping present the mystery of Christ.  Quite just and proper and correct to be discussing the role of women in the priesthood of the Catholic Church.

Come-on Therese, Cardinal Ratzinger said regarding the teachings on women's ordination "This teaching requires definitive assent." You can't totally twist these words around...come-on now.

In peace,

Therese

*For instance, when he was alive, Cardinal Flahiff of Winnipeg vocally questioned -- in the Vatican-- women's exclusion from the priesthood.  There is no agreement on the teaching.  The world's bishops have never been given an opportunity to collectively discuss.  In fact, until the end of the twentieth century, no one was discussing it much at all.

 
I don't believe that there has been 100% unanimity on any dogma of the Church...even Christ's hypostatic union.
 
 
J
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 23:34:10 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Therese

If you hold views contrary to Catholic teaching, does that not make you opposed to Catholic teaching? And in being opposed to Catholic teaching, wouldn't that make you an anti-Catholic? At least in those issues, right?


Joseph,

I don't agree with this. Who is drawing the line in the sand?  You? 

If something jars my conscience, as a member of the faith, haven't I a positive duty to speak up?  Is this being opposed to the faith of the Church? If I had spoken up against slavery at the time the Church said slavery was ok, would you have labelled me anti Catholic?

Therese, please
 
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Recall an example of how Church teaching flipped back and forth on the subject of slavery:

1224-1274 AD: St.Thomas Aquinas defends slavery as instituted by God in punishment for sin, and justified as being part of the ‘right of nations’ and natural law. Children of a slave mother are rightly slaves even though they have not committed personal sin! (Quoted by many later Popes).
1435 AD: Pope Eugenius IV condemns the indiscriminate enslavement of natives in the Canary Islands, but does not condemn slavery as such. 
1454 AD: Through the bull Romanus Pontifex, Pope Nicholas V authorises the king of Portugal to enslave all the Saracen and pagan peoples his armies may conquer.
1493 AD: Pope Alexander VI authorises the King of Spain to enslave non-Christians of the Americas who are at war with Christian powers.
1537 AD: Pope Paul III condemns the indiscriminate enslavement of Indians in South America.
1548 AD: The same Pope Paul III confirms the right of clergy and laity to own slaves.

You say 'slavery was not a dogmatic teaching of the Church" and therefore could be discussed.

I've proved OS is not 'dogmatic teaching' yet you still insist it cannot be discussed.

I'm sorry Therese, but the Church's stance on "women priests" is an infallible teaching; whereas slavery was not. You have proven nothing.

What's up?  If not anti-woman, what is it?  Really, I want to understand where this opposition comes from. Why must women be 'out?'

In Christ's peace,
Therese

 
Did you read the post I put up from JPII, or should I re-post it?
 
The priesthood is not an issue that concerns 'women's rights.' Due to this, if there are any other issues outside of the priesthood that concerns women's rights that you would like to discuss, then I will be more than willing (like female circumcision...).
 
J
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 23:36:14 (permalink)
J and Therese,
 
I have been looking for some articles that might be helpful to your debate.
 
Here is one of them.  I'll see what else I can find!
 
http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/doyle2.asp
 
Love and blessings,
Sophie
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 23:37:32 (permalink)
Here's another -- a bit more basic:
 
http://www.womenpriests.org/pcalled.asp
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 23:39:23 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Therese

I don't believe that women are incapable of reflecting the spirit of Christ to the world...we are all called to do this in Baptism.


Joseph,

I agree with what you say here.

How do you support the arbitrary drawing of the line:

women can receive the sacrament of Baptism but not of Holy Orders.
women can have six sacraments.  men can have seven.
what is that women lack?  what is it that makes women capable of reflecting Christ in Baptism but not in Holy Orders?  what is it?

Perplexed,
Therese

 
It is the nature of the priesthood. Not all people receive all seven sacraments.
 
This idea of "reflecting Christ" is a very narrow view of what the sacrament of Holy Orders is all about.
 
For a theological discussion on the Sacrament of Holy Orders and "women priests" I can give you a title of a book written by a German priest Monday. Also, order  that book from St. Vladamir Press.
 
J
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Can women be icons of Christ? 2007/01/20 23:48:16 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Therese

Joseph,

You provided a link to a speech given by JPII in 1983 -- almost 25 years old.

If what he means when he says:





In so doing, such individuals or groups are in effect damaging the very dignity of women that they profess to promote and advance. All efforts made against the truth are destined to produce not only failure but also acute personal frustration.




that women and men are not identical, then I agree with him.  There are differences between men and women.  To make a woman identical to a man is impossible to do. 

Having said this, there is nothing that you've shown or said, nothing that JPII or Benedict have shown or said, which establishes why women are incapable of performing the role of priest.

Maybe you might want to step out a little further than www.womenpriests.org then.

Pedro came the closest when he said that if the priest takes the role of Christ, and if 'masculinity' went right into Christ's soul, then an argument could be made that priests must be male.  With all respect to Pedro, I still haven't seen anything  produced to substantiate this.  I am assuming he must be away.  Our discussion in Why Women Don't Get Vocations to the Priesthood was left dangling...waiting for his reply.

Can someone please get to the core of it:  say something that appeals to reason as to why women cannot be part of Holy Orders.

So far:  I have heard zero in the way of any argument that could be described as even coming close to convincing on the side of the debate that defends 'no women in the priesthood.'

In fact, if we get started, I can think of dozens of reasons as to why women as women (as opposed to being duplicates of men) should be part of Holy Orders.  The world needs women just as much as Holy Orders needs women.

I am not a man.  I am a woman.  Christ came to take on humanity.
Man...new Adam 
  In my humanity, I therefore can be an icon of Christ just as much as any man can.  If you appeal to anything, it must be to my reason and my faith as to why this cannot be so.  I present myself in my fullness as a woman as a candidate for priesthood.  What is about my feminity that makes me an objectionable candidate?

What makes me incapable of being an icon of Christ in the priesthood?

In Christ's peace,

Therese

 
Are these the questions that you have, or is it the infallibility aspect of the teaching? If you were shown by the nature of Christ's work, and the intercessional value of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the role of priest as alter Christus, and the theology of salvation history...if you were shown all of these things and why the Church teaches what it does, would you then accept the Church's teachings?
 
You see Therese, I don't find any objection in you wanting to learn these things. It is in your disobedience to the Church that I find objectionable.
 
J
Page: < 12345.. > >> Showing page 2 of 15 - Powered by APG vNext Trial
Guest
Quick Reply: (Open Full Version)
  Enter the random characters shown
Submit Post
Jump to:
© 2020 APG vNext Trial Version 4.6

This website is maintained by the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research.

Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research

Visitors to www.womenpriests.org since 11 January 2014

Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research