Women Can Be Priests
Reply to post

Peter Kreeft

Page: << < ..2627282930.. > >> Showing page 30 of 35 - 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: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 05:03:02 (permalink)
If there is an article where Kreeft or Van Balthasaur suggest that during Holy Commuion semen is literally exchanged between the persons involved (Christ, priest, parishoner) please direct me towards it.


J. Michael,

Sophie directed you to one of them (I know there are more.)  Please see her post in this thread, #500.

There is no 'misunderstanding.'  If it were Truth, there wouldn't be these potholes, pitfalls, and repulsive parts.  It really is a group of men who are embarrassed to admit that Rome has been wrong in keeping women out.  Now instead of resorting to the age old arguments that women are inferior (see another thread I started, Women--misbegotten men? An ancient prejudice lives and rules. ) they are now resorting to a new argument --- found absolutely no where in our Tradition.  It's only popped up now.  (Funny thing -- the 'pop up' imagery of only shows up now seems appropriate!)

The whole notion of the Eucharist being related to the function of a penis is just as my dad says:  repulsive.

I have been visiting in these forums for almost 8 months.  Though there have been a few people who say they defend the application of nuptial imagery, when I'd start asking questions, they would go away or dodge the questions entirely.

For instance:  for all the challenges I have faced in these discussions, not one single voice of opposition deigned to set foot into the Bride and Bridegroom in Ephesians?  thread.  

The arguments against what Kreeft and von Balthasar have to say are so astonishingly, resoundingly sensible and easy to articulate.  On the other side, no one seems to be capable of defending what they have to say when questions start to be asked about what it is they have to say.

If Truth is Truth, shouldn't it be able to stand up to questions?
 
You are the first person who has actually been honest enough to try.  I deeply respect and admire you both for this and your courteous manner in which you do it.

My sense is that you are a committed follower of Christ.  It is also evident that you are respectful of women.  My sense is also that you might be quite astonished to find what you find when your read through the women misbegotten men thread...or delve a little more deeply into kreeft and von balthasar.
 
I am grateful for your presence here. As I say to my friend Pedro,
oremus pro invicem -- let us pray for one another!

In the peace of our shared friendship in Christ,
Therese
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 05:06:32 (permalink)
  J Michael in his posts appears very aware of this orgasmic aspect of what he posts as J Michael too refers often to "fruitful outpouring" of the nuptial union of the man and of the sacrafice as he terms it. 
    Eucharist by male orgasm is unacceptable theological construct found nowhere in the teachings of Jesus.  Maria
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 05:16:13 (permalink)
  Navaroo has posted a succinct appraisal that confirms the bridegroom analogy of priesthood is unacceptable:
 
"I have to agree with the other posters that the symbolism of the eucharist (food and drink)
 
is a universal ( and non-sexual ) one, deliberately chosen, like baptism, and unlike circumcision,
 
 to be gender-inclusive, and therefore cannot in any way represent a male-female sex act or analogy."
 
     Navaroo has phrased this very ably.   Blessings from Connie
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 05:24:55 (permalink)
fruitful outpouring

 
Hi Maria,
 
In the olden days when everything seemed right to me in the Church, I always understood Christ's fruitful outpouring to be about his shedding blood until he died on the cross.  I got a message about sacrifice of self and it motivated me as a Christian to sacrifice myself in service to others -- just like Christ.  It never ever crossed my mind that fruitful outpouring had to do with male orgasm -- especially that of Christ -- or that because it was about what a man's organ could do, I could not participate -- at that time way back when even as an altar server --since I was a girl/woman.
 
Ignorance was bliss.
 
It is good to hear your voice!
 
In Christ's peace,
Therese
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 05:29:28 (permalink)
  There is a distinctly homoerotic essence to the bridegroom aspect of "celibate" male priests having nuptial wedding eucharist with Jesus, being in love with Jesus  and expressing this love with their "nuptial fruitful sacrafice of self".
 
A bizarre demeaning pagan sexual distortion of the holy mass eucharist.  This is why male only clergy is a dreadful mistake because such fantasizes about males sexualizing the eucharist are allowed to occur that in no way involve women and give entitlement and predominance to men only, women are unwanted and excluded, unnecessary and invisible. 
 
 This is not the eucharist of Jesus who considers a priest a humble servant of God, the body is bread of life not sex of life, the wine his blood, not semen.  Ordain women and stop this all male clergy distortion of our mass.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 05:49:07 (permalink)
  The ultimate hypocracy is to have all male "celibate" priesthood go on and on about "nuptial eucharist imagery" when they deliberately exclude women.
 
   Conclusion: same sex nuptials  eucharist imagery is what they promote yet officially they denounce that.
 
   The nuns of my elementary school must be tearing their rosaries apart over the way the mass is viewed now by these clerics and the Vatican. 
 
This would be funny if it was not so serious. Let us fix the church and bring on women priests and married men priests.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 07:25:37 (permalink)
These arguments against ordination of women appear to be a mass of contradictions and hypocrisy.
 
*Man can represent the bride but woman can’t represent the groom.
*Men and women are equal but man is Head of woman.
*Christ made the priesthood for men only, but women shouldn’t feel slighted by this discrimination.
*Man must serve the woman and the woman must submit to being served by the man (I shudder to think what this means).
*The man totally gives of himself to the woman in marriage and the woman totally gives of herself to the man, but the man’s giving reflects Christ’s giving of self on the Cross and the woman’s does not.
*Both men and women make sacrifices in marriage but only the man’s sacrifice in marriage reflects the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
*Man is Head of woman but this is not a power issue.
*God is all just but discriminates against women.
*Men should not exert authority over women or men but man is Head of woman.
*God gave women all the graces and blessings to be priests and then decreed that they cannot be priests.
*A woman’s body does not make her a valid substance for the sacrament of Holy Orders. It was not Christ’s humanity, or nationality, or race but his gender that defined the priesthood.
*Women priests would be rebelling against their womanhood, because a male can represent the bride but a female cannot represent the groom.
 
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 08:10:52 (permalink)
Hello,
 
I agree with you. They are.  Part of the problem that Rome faces today is a body of the faithful who are becoming more fully informed, well educated, willing to critically think, unafraid of asking questions or challenging something that is wrong.
 
When it was the day that few people had time or resources to critically engage, lots more gloss could be 'sold' as real potatoes even if they weren't.
 
For all the reasons: information, education, willingness to ask questions, internet... People can learn what the arguments are and can challenge them.   
 
Some people might see this as a bad thing:  'look at those people making trouble for the Church.'  I see it as a good thing -- it is a sign that Truth is trying to emerge and that Truth belongs to everyone.
 
If you are the person who put the lists together earlier, I think you are doing a great job in helping to raise awareness about the discrepancies, hypocrises, double standards, contradictions... that are part of the picture.
 
with my eyes fixed on Christ,
Therese
 
 
 
 
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 12:05:26 (permalink)
   The HUGE CAVEAT with this is it is not based on God's of Jesus's teachings as shown by the New Testament.
1. Jesus informs us repeatedly in the Book of Matthew a priest is "humble servant of God" NOT a bridegroom.
 
2. Jesus CHOSE and APPROVED of WOMEN APOSTLES and DISCIPLES far beyond twelve tribal Jewish male disciples.
WOMEN COUNT TO JESUS.  JESUS CHOSE WOMEN  To REPRESENT HIM.
 
3. A WOMAN IS MORE SUITED TO BE A PRIEST  according to John Paul II NEWEST idea od eucharist:
 
In nuptial union a WOMAN risks her very LIFE as a TRUE sacrafice like Jesus in the true danger and pain and suffering of chidbirth, a self-given sacrafice, total, Freely, Totally, Faithfully, Fruitfully  when she offers her body up as a sacrafice like Jesus in nuptial sex which leads to childbirth.  Also like Virgin Mary who is without sin Woman symbolically Freely Faithfullu Totally Fruitfully Fruit of Her Womb again Woman alone makes the True Sacrafice of Self Just Like Jesus:
 
Therefore John Paul II shows us WOMAN ALONE CAN BE EUCHATIST PRIEST,  ONLY A WOMAN CAN IMAGE JESUS WHO SACRAFICED HIMSELF ON THE CROSS   
 
if we are going to use Nuptial sex imagery as eucharist imagery
 INSTEAD  of the bread of life, body of Jesus,  EAT THIS BREAD
it is my body which is given up for you, do this in memory of me
 
 
then it HAS to be WOMAN WHO FULLY IMAGES JESUS   as ONLY WOMEN not men CAN BE PRIESTS.
because only women make the ultimate SACRAFICE OF SELF during nuptial sex.
 
That is the  only conclusion we can make from this "Eucharist is Nuptial sex sacrafice" """theology""""     that is newly emanating from Rome to justify who can be priest.  Only a woman is truly suitable then. 
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 12:14:24 (permalink)
  This New Eucharist is Nuptial Sex '''theology"   is making trouble for the church.
 
   It is no way based on Eucharist  EAT THIS BREAD IT IS MY BODY which is given up for you
 
   We are helping the church to correct this new wrong """"theology""" whose only purpose is to wrongly try to exlude women from priesthood.
 
    The Eucharist host is not about nuptial sexual sacrafice at all.     Ordain women, end this insanity foisted on us by a select few in the Vatican.  The Majority of Catholic Theologians do not accept this new  """"theology''''' for women  ordination exclusion as at all credible because it definatively is not credible.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 14:12:56 (permalink)
    Jesus commissioned many women to be his disciples, apostles, missionaries, preachers, prophets, church leaders and many men as well.
 
     Jesus tells us "Love God with all your heart, and all your mind and love your neighbour as yourself."
Women are the "neighbour" to be "loved as yourself" not to be excluded, considered too different to do what Jesus commissioned the women to do: all representation of Jesus in  all his ministry. 
 
     Jesus did not say to women you can not do that because you can be a mother and because you are not a man.
Ordination of women as well as men  is also the will and way of Jesus and God.
 
     Maria
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 18:09:28 (permalink)
Christ is God. God is superior to the Church (not equal to the Church),
Christ is the Bridegroom, the “Head" of the Church, his Bride.
 
Man (Bridegroom) is “Head” of woman (Bride) like Christ is “Head “ of the Church.
But man is not superior to woman.
 
What is wrong with this argument?
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 18:22:21 (permalink)
What is it trying to argue?

It is going in a couple of different directions.

It starts out saying God is superior. Then it sounds like it is trying to make
an analogy between the relationships of God/Church + Man/Woman.

In the first relationship it says God is superior.

Then I don't understand why the next analogy is used. It makes no sense.
If God + Man = Bridegroom

and if Church + Woman = Bride

And if God is Superior to Church,

then why is it following with Man is not Superior to Woman.

The argument is setting itself up to say that Man is Superior to Woman just the way that
God is Superior to Church.

But then it doesn't go there. Therefore it just seems like mumbo jumbo.

Kind of like saying these two relationships are the same but then suddenly doing a flip
and saying these two relationships are not the same.

The problem with the argument is that I don't understand what it's trying to argue.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 18:51:39 (permalink)
The term “argument” is being used here in the sense of “line of reasoning.”
 
Another way to ask the question would be:
 
Is the reasoning flawed?
 
Based on your reply the answer would be yes.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 21:49:10 (permalink)
  God is Ineffable Spirit Both Male and Female.
 
   Therefore both male and female persons can represent or image or  be icons or serve as eucharist Priests.
 
    Jesus lets us know emphatically that the role is "Humble Servant Of God"  certainly not "bridegroom"
 
     Again Jesus lets us know either man or woman can be "Humble Servant of God" priest.
 
      Jesus asks us to "When you eat this bread and drink this wine, it is my body and blood which is given up for you. Do this in memory of me."
 
       No where does Jesus say anyone can not do this in memory of him, or the sex of the people doing this in memory of him.  No restrictions laid out by Jesus at all.
Jesus does not say only men do this in memory of me and he does not say this is a wedding ceremony.  No not at all.
 
       Thank you Therese for quoting directly the grotesque Van Balthasar male sacrafice  as orgasm sacrafice from his Elucidations         (hmmmmmm  ???)    book.   Proving without a doubt the pornographic homoerotic nature of this.
 
        This certainly is not a legitimate "theology" of the Eucharist.  Ordain women and we need to reform this. Connie
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 22:36:08 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

The term “argument” is being used here in the sense of “line of reasoning.”

Another way to ask the question would be:

Is the reasoning flawed?

Based on your reply the answer would be yes.


Yes. Flawed.

Yet it is a line of reasoning that is often used...as though it were convincing.

Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 23:30:42 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

ORIGINAL: Guest

The term “argument” is being used here in the sense of “line of reasoning.”

Another way to ask the question would be:

Is the reasoning flawed?

Based on your reply the answer would be yes.


Yes. Flawed.

Yet it is a line of reasoning that is often used...as though it were convincing.



 
Exactly. One wonders how the Roman Curia would fare on a standard IQ test.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/08 23:48:31 (permalink)
   I think (irony there!) the Curia are mostly very intelligent.  They seem to be temporarily out of "spiritual" intelligence of Jesus. Because they dream up bad ideas that defy God,  Curia demeans, excludes women , they do not "love your neighbour-women- as yourself".
They dream up a flawed and harmful to church way to try to exclude women.  It is very sad and bad for our church.
 
   What do you think of the Scriptural reasons I posted why the bridegroom concept of priesthood is flawed-  instead it is servant of God, male eucharist nuptial orgasm idea is wrong- body is bread of life, only twelve disciples errors  (lots of women disciples too, many chosen directly by Jesus).  I think Scripture here is a cogent powerful defence against such misogynist heresy by the Curia.
 
   In Luke Jesus tells us "I will give you words of wisdom" to counter such trickery and falsehood and persecution.
 
    What do you think? Do these scriptural passages speak to you also of the falseness of the Von Balthasar, Kreeft and John Paul II book about these same mistaken misogynist ideas of eucharistic male organ sacrafice at mass.    Connie
 
 
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/09 00:40:29 (permalink)
Dear Connie,
 
You are correct in your analysis.
 
If the members of the Roman Curia are very intelligent then they would know the falsehood and lack of logic in their arguments.
 
If this is true then their sins are all the more grave, because they know what they are doing.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/09 04:22:12 (permalink)
  By this crazy wrong misogynist "men only be bridegroom priest" new"' '''theology''''' now coming out of the Vatican
 
Jesus is called bridegroom then symbolically and literally only a Woman can be a priest because only a woman can be
 
a bride, otherwise it becomes same sex unions  by this idea : Roman Church prohibits male-male nuptials, so to avoid  this 
 
caused by this crazy new ""theology""" only women can be priests.  Men can not be "brides" of Christ because they are not
 
female and that would be a same sex union then according to this degrading new "priest is bridegroom'  rot.
 
   The Eucharist is NOT a nuptial union at all but the bread of life is what the holy host of Jesus is.  Rome has to stop thinking
 
up  disgusting new ways to try to block women from ordination.  Yikes.  A nutty misogynist mess of a church. Reform please!
Page: << < ..2627282930.. > >> Showing page 30 of 35 - 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