Women Can Be Priests
Reply to post

Peter Kreeft

Page: << < ..3132333435 > Showing page 31 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 2007/06/09 04:25:00 (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.

 
Yes Connie and dear friend,
 
I agree with this.  It also might have a bit to say about what their perceptions are of the IQ of the faithful.

ie Curia speaking amongst themselves: 'What does it matter that this line of reasoning is faulty?  It sounds pretty good. They're not that smart.  They'll buy it. Let's sell it.'

('they' = us; the body of the faithful.)

If this is what is going on, then yes, pretty grievous.  Is this the kind of 'parent' who Jesus spoke about -- when the child asked for a piece of bread, you handed them a stone?

Pretty darn shabby anyway one looks at it:
  • if it is a demonstration of the Curia's low IQ, then this is quite sad
  • if it is a demonstration of the Curia's 'slyness' then this is quite sad
  • if it is a demonstration of trying to protect the ecclesiastical common good, then this is also quite sad, too.  Generally this sort of behaviour tends to be like a boomerang.  What goes around comes around...sometimes in a much bigger way.  Wanting to protect the institution from shame in this way ends up creating a situation that is a whole lot more shameful.

hmm...as I speak, the methods used by many bishops in handling the paedophelia crisis (before it became a public crisis) = an example of possibly all of the last three points about the Bishops.  I am not clear as to how much Rome knew or was involved.

A sad situation where we the faithful even bear some blame -- much of this happened during times when the general trend in the faithful was that it was wrong to ask questions about 'Father.'  Co-dependent behaviour is not a healthy way of responding.

If we as a Church can at least learn lessons from this and apply them -- develop the skills and the courage to raise the questions, understand there is a need for watchful eyes, and realise that it is important to listen -- then we'll be showing some sort of honour to those who have suffered, and also showing that we as community are rising.

Therese 
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/09 04:29:54 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

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!


You are right to point out that parts of this new approach as to why women cannot be priests is absolutely new.  It doesn't show up anywhere in Church history until quite recently (latter half of the twentieth century?.)  So much for Tradition.

Therese
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/10 01:13:50 (permalink)


(1) This guy is completely gay.  This list screams "get me to a 'special' monastery...".

I wouldn't let anyone like this within a thousand miles of any boys under 17.

Okay, I'm finished the homophobic ad hominem.  Now for the rest.


Dear Nazaroo,

I am not quite sure what the point you are trying to make here is.  It comes across like a definite put down of gay people.  This makes me uncomfortable.  We are each and every one of us made in the image and likeness of God. 

If you are not denigrating homosexuals, I do not understand your intentions/motivations.
 
If you are denigrating homosexuals, you are denigrating the image and likeness of God -- all made in God's image. Your statements betray a lack of respect for human life.  Ad hominems against homosexuals do not reflect respect for life.

On the matter of Ad hominems.  When I witness someone resort to their use, I ask 'Hmmm. Why is the person stooping to this in intelligent discussion?'  Then I wonder: is the speaker rude, possibly poorly informed.  Ad hominems/caustic diatribes against groups of people reduce my inclination to want to listen to the one who utters them.  I'll hazard a guess and say that your good points will be more well received by your audience if you do not use ad hominems at all.

And for the record: Homosexuals do not present a danger to children.  Peodophiles do.  There is a difference.  

You see right there I have to stop, and prevent myself from my first instinct, which is to beat the man to death with a baseball bat.  I'm just being honest here.

Are you the person with the anti-stoning website?


As a man who abhors violence, this instinct frightens me almost as much as the impulse of self-righteousness. And yet, deep in my bones, I know this instinct is there for a reason. Its some part of God's design, a survival instinct that must have existed in the male of the species from time immemorial.

You can't be serious!  This isn't survival instinct. This isn't justification for wanting to beat someone to death with a bat.  

What you are expressing has more to do with "I have no respect for someone who thinks differently from me "  or "Because someone thinks differently from me I am therefore justified in using the excuse of survival instinct to want to beat the person to death."  As I write this, I also wonder whether differences of opinion are perceived as a threat to manhood (since you are a man. Perhaps 'personhood' might be a better term?)  If they are, then I could see how one might think a survival instinct is kicking in ie, survival of the fragile ego. 

If this is what the survival instinct relates to ie ego, it betrays a deep seated sense of insecurity.  But I can't imagine that is the point you are trying to convey.  I am not suggesting that you are insecure.  Whether you are or you aren't,  I wonder if it is your intention to raise this question in the mind of your audience -- ie, 'What's up? Is this guy insecure?'


I know hundreds of men who, if they thought a priest was even remotely contemplating 'spamming' the Eucharist, would form a lynch mob quicker than KKK rally interrupted by a black teen with a boom-box blaring and giving them the finger.  I shudder to think what that priest would suffer before expiring.

Yet that kind of knee-jerk reflex isn't just an unconscious animal instinct.  It is borne by an intellectual and Spiritual repulsion almost indescribable in its intensity.  Its not that I couldn't simply intellectually refute the notion.  Its whether I could stay calm long enough to do so.

Yikes!!! I don't read this as either spiritual or intellectual!!! 


(3) I have to agree with 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

Bravo!  for both most of what you say and the manner the fact that you manage to say this without violent tone.

A question though on one point: why do you mention circumcision? It is not part of Christian tradition so I don't get how it fits in here.  Also, why do you suggest that circumcision is not gender-inclusive?  It happens to both boys and girls.


If it did, I'd join the Muslims and run the Christians into the sea to destroy the evil cult among us.

I can't quite yet discern what you are all about.  Some interesting thoughts, some thoughts I agree with, some thoughts well expressed, but also quite a frightened blend of concerning tendencies towards violence???  You are the person connected with the anti-stoning website if I am not mistaken?

Muslims by the way are not trying to run Christians into the sea to destroy an evil cult among us.  Muslim extremists might be trying to do this...but not Muslims in general.


4) Unlike the other posters, I have an awfully good idea where these cult fetish ideas come from.  This creep is obviously a member of some Freemasonic or OTO style satanic cult.  He probably drinks blood out of a human skull or some other disgusting ritual, in order to join the all-male homo-banker secret society.   All I can say is, these guys are all going to hell.

Ok.  This is totally bizarre and completely without foundation.  I might disagree with Peter Kreeft but this is totally slanderous and inappropriate. 

Also to say 'these guys are all going to hell'???? No one knows the mind of God but God.  Isn't Christ's message about love, forgiveness and everyone included in the possibility of redemption? 

The red flags that go up all around you diminish my interest in reading what you have to say.  A hermeneutics of suspicion?  On the other hand, is this a waste of time?

Is there something we can do about this since amidst some of this slanderous blather and violent rhetoric I think you might have some good points to make?

with my eyes fixed on Christ,
Therese
post edited by Therese - 2007/06/10 23:00:12
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/10 04:04:13 (permalink)
Dear Nazaroo,

While I was at mass this evening, I thought about what is being written here.  I thought about the aspects of your post that startle me/disturb me.  I also reflected on how I responded to you. I apologise for coming across in what may have seemed to be only a negatively critical and astonished manner.  It's true. Portions of your sharings startle and disturb me:

You see right there I have to stop, and prevent myself from my first instinct, which is to beat the man to death with a baseball bat.  I'm just being honest here.  


As a man who abhors violence, this instinct frightens me almost as much as the impulse of self-righteousness. And yet, deep in my bones, I know this instinct is there for a reason. Its some part of God's design, a survival instinct that must have existed in the male of the species from time immemorial.


An impulse to this kind of violence.... Wow  (don't read the wow as 'I'm impressed' -- because I am not.) Violence is wrong.  A discussion about urges/tendencies towards violence are not part of an 'easy come easy go' kind of conversation.  The kinds of violence you mention are concerning ...at what I would call the serious end of the scale....

But while at mass, I also reflected on these aspects of what you said:

As a man who abhors violence, this instinct frightens me almost as the impulse of self-righteousness


and your earlier statement

I'm just being honest here.
 

It crossed my mind that my manner of response  to someone who was being honest was a knee-jerk reflexive reaction to what struck me as an uncritical attitude towards violence.

Now that I consider that you say these feelings frighten you:  Mea culpa -- I came back at you with a self righteous response. I am sorry.  Knee jerk self-righteousness = I latched on to what I disagreed with in your post and lost connection with my curiosity and also failed to deeply hear what you are saying. So, please forgive me and may I start again.  This time round I will say: your violent urges frighten me.  What are they about?  This isn't what I would understand as 'normal' or 'healthy.' Have you considered seeking help?  Have you had your hormones checked?

There is a thread here about gender differences. 

At mass I pondered whether our world's overwhelming supply of violence is connected in anyway to what could be hormonal imbalances in men.  Women have hormonal imbalances and it seems quite clear that men have them, too.  And because of this we live in a world filled with violence. Traditionally, it is men who wage modern war, beat up homosexuals, organise the KKK, rip apart the blacks, burn witches at the stake, wage holy wars, set out rules for what shall be the 'boundaries and limits' of ethical torture, etc.... 

What are the reasons for this?
  • Are these tendencies which some men struggle so much with managing mostly related to hormone imbalances in them? Too much testosterone? Is this tendency towards violence part of what is a gender difference?  If so, how much of it is?  Women are capable of committing quite horrific violence, too. Where does that fit in?
  • is it an 'ego' need to dominate?
  • is it an ego need in another way: an indicator of insecurity; discomfort in oneself? internal sense of fragility?
  • is it related to 'fear' -- fear of that which is different?

I appreciate your acknowledgement that this is something you work at managing appropriately.  Perhaps in your contributions to the anti-stoning campaign you experience some form of self- redemptive work?

As I write this, the words come out quite awkwardly.  I hope you catch the drift of what I am trying to say.  Let me underline:  my comments come from a place of concern, curiosity, hoping to learn more,  wanting to draw a line in the sand and grateful that you share with honesty and self awareness about this aspect in yourself.

I look forward to hearing from you on this.  If you said a prayer for me that I could be more curious, thank you!  It worked!  I am saying prayers for you.

with my eyes fixed on Christ,
Therese
post edited by Therese - 2007/06/11 21:19:56
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/10 05:14:45 (permalink)
  Extraordinary Evil: A Short History of Genocide: A Short Walk From Contempt, to Exclusion To Murder
The impulse  to be full of contempt and intolerance for that which is different from oneself, the impulse to exclude or harm that which is different from oneself: as the immediate impulse expressed was to beat up the other with a baseball bat.
    Then there is Jesus amazing us with his mantra "Love your neighbour --the other---as yourself."
    Does this mean we are to hate, demean, exclude, harm, beat to death the perceived other, here homosexuals or drive to the sea -the Muslims?  "Love your neighbour as yourself." Love.  Does Jesus ask us to self-mutilate or self-murder "as yourself'  Love the other as yourself.  Wow,  what a heaven on earth this will create and does create when we do try hard to love our neighbour as ourself.  This we are told is the most important law.
     Neil Boyd's The Beast Within examines this phenomena too.  At an important level we realize intolerance, contempt and inflicting harm is not the will and way of Jesus.  What a tough commandment but one we must fufill if we claim to be Christian or human, Blessings from Connie.  That is moral and that is ethical: Love your neighbour as yourself.
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/10 05:36:46 (permalink)
Connie,

I appreciate what you share here.  I must read these books you recommend.

I hope I made it clear in my post to Nazaroo that I don't support any of the violence that he writes about.  It is all wrong and against the way of Christ. Nonetheless, I do appreciate his honest expression that he (like many others) struggles to manage a beast within.  I can't knock him for admitting a problem and trying to do something about it.  Where do those urges come from? and what do we do about the dreadful consequences of poor management of them. 

This might be a good topic for our Gender Differences thread. Is there a difference between men and women in terms of relationships with violence? Maybe Sophie can help us out.

Mr Nazaroo:  just to be clear.  Your expressed tendencies towards violence are unsettling...beating someone with a baseball bat, KKK, lynch mobs??? However, I appreciate your frankness and applaud your effort to properly manage what you struggle with inside. My apology to you:
  • does not erase one bit of my concern about the violent tendencies you express. 
  • is made because I failed to appreciate the aspect of your sharing that you struggle to manage what's inside.   It is good to hear that you are trying to manage your tendencies. The world doesn't need any more violent energy.  As Gandhi said -- Be the change you want to see happen in the world.  In management of your urges, you play your part in this.
  • does not erase the fact that I point blank disagree with your statement that there is something intellectual or spiritual about things like KKK, etc

Connie has abley shared Christ's perspective. I concur with her in this.

with my eyes fixed on Christ,
Therese
post edited by Therese - 2007/06/10 22:51:41
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/10 22:03:59 (permalink)
Hello Theresa 
    I am reading books about the Gospel of Judas and their connection to church "fathers', to the Gospels and other Gnostic texts, plus I also borrowed The Expected One, a novel about Mary Magdalene and one older book called Alone Among Her Sex, The Cult of Virgin Mary.  Have you looked at any of these?  I have  read Marvin Meyer and Walis Barnstone's Gnostic Bible and it is wonderful with great commentaries by these experts of ancient spiritual pre-Christian and Christian texts. 
Connie
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/11 15:19:14 (permalink)
This guy is completely gay. This list screams "get me to a 'special' monastery...".

I wouldn't let anyone like this within a thousand miles of any boys under 17.

Okay, I'm finished the homophobic ad hominem. Now for the rest. Nazaroo
 


I know hundreds of men who, if they thought a priest was even remotely contemplating 'spamming' the Eucharist, would form a lynch mob quicker than KKK rally interrupted by a black teen with a boom-box blaring and giving them the finger.  I shudder to think what that priest would suffer before expiring.

Yet that kind of knee-jerk reflex isn't just an unconscious animal instinct.  It is borne by an intellectual and Spiritual repulsion almost indescribable in its intensity.  Its not that I couldn't simply intellectually refute the notion.  Its whether I could stay calm long enough to do so.  Nazaroo



If it did, I'd join the Muslims and run the Christians into the sea to destroy the evil cult among us. Nazaroo


Unlike the other posters, I have an awfully good idea where these cult fetish ideas come from.  This creep is obviously a member of some Freemasonic or OTO style satanic cult.  He probably drinks blood out of a human skull or some other disgusting ritual, in order to join the all-male homo-banker secret society.   All I can say is, these guys are all going to hell.  Nazaroo


Nazaroo,

Concerns about aspects of your post in this thread have been brought to my attention.  Some of the above quotations are included so as to ensure you are clear as to my reference. Initially, I considered completely deleting these comments.  For the sake of our community knowing that boundaries in discussion do apply, I included them here to ensure my message to you is clear.

Take this as fair warning.  Homophobic remarks, expressions of violence, Islamophobic (or other anti-faith community) rhetoric and slanderous discussion simply will not be tolerated here.  They do not characterise what is considered to be Christian conversation in an academic environment except to say that they exemplify what are considered to be some of the scourges on humanity. 

Our site is gay friendly, operates with the Christian vision of peacemaking through dialogue, and holds itself to standards of academic integrity:  none of which are exemplified in the above. As Moderator, be warned that I will use a firm hand.  Consider that you have now been given fair warning.  Your future posts are on probation. The one strike rule now applies --  one strike: it's out. Any contributions that do not in their entirety comply with the spirit of this guideline will be deleted from our record. 

I trust this is one hundred percent clear.  If it is not or you have questions, please let me know.

with concern and love,
~Sophie~ 
post edited by Sophie - 2007/06/11 21:22:53
Nazaroo
Senior Member
  • Total Posts : 54
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/06/06 22:39:50
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/11 21:45:13 (permalink)
First, I thank the moderator for allowing these comments to stand.
 
Let me continue to play the devil's advocate, by discussing the subjects raised by my tongue in cheek post.
 
I say 'tongue in cheek', because the clues are all there for anyone to see between the lines, and get the point, and then press on and examine the issues raised.
 
To demonstrate this for those who may have missed it, let me re-reference some key phrases, that thankfully have not been deleted from the original post:
 
"Okay, I'm finished the homophobic ad hominem.  Now for the rest. ..."

 
If this isn't a clear announcement that what immediately precedes and follows must be taken with a grain of salt, I don't know what is. I have here prelabeled the "offending remark" in exactly the way an opponent of it would, in a preemptive strike.
 
I'm just being honest here.

 
Therese  rightly picked up on the self-observation and 'cry for help' in this statement.  Before we can be polite, we have to be honest.  Before any problem can really be solved, it must be on the table for all in a loving community to examine.
 
As a man who abhors violence, this instinct frightens me almost as much as the impulse of self-righteousness.

 
Again, if this doesn't indicate I'm on the team of reason, nothing can.
 
I know hundreds of men who, if they thought a priest was ...

 
Here again, you must know that if you don't recognise the depth and colossal widespread nature of a problem, you have no hope of even defending yourself from it, let alone solving it.
 
The AIDS epidemic is a great example of this.   It is absurd to speak of handing out a few condoms, when millions of people are dying.
 
(3) I have to agree with 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

 
Here again is a clear statement of truth, with an unusually concise clarity in its explanation of the problem, its ethical context,  and solution.
 
One responder appreciated it, and another completely misunderstood the whole issue enough to actually cloud it further, defeating your cause.  That is pathetic. With friends like that, you don't need enemies.
 
4) Unlike the other posters, I have an awfully good idea where these cult fetish ideas come from.  This creep is obviously a member of some Freemasonic or OTO style satanic cult.  He probably drinks blood out of a human skull or some other disgusting ritual, in order to join the all-male homo-banker secret society.   All I can say is, these guys are all going to hell.

 
It is hardly surprising that a group of women has no clue about the politics and workings of all-male power groups and secret societies. 
 
You may have trouble believing that such 'private clubs for rich men' exist, but your ignorance of this won't protect you from their agendas or shield you from their power and control of the essential economic levers.
 
There is nothing inappropriate in recognising male control of government, the army, the economic engines, trade and commerce, and even academia.
 
And you can't have it both ways.  You can't go around denying the fact of male secret societies, and at the same time complain of a patriarchical male-dominated society.  This is like trying to recite a soliloquy while spurting coca cola through your nose.
 
I've opened up lots of aspects for discussion.  Lets now continue!...
 
Peace,
Nazaroo
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/11 23:39:28 (permalink)
I think the previous posts are getting off the topic of the “Kreeft” discussion.
Kreeft, the Vatican, and company are advancing flawed arguments in an attempt to prevent ordination of women and to maintain subjugation of women. In my opinion this thread should remain focused on the misinterpretation of the Bridegroom analogy (comparing a man’s self giving in marriage with the Eucharist) as well as their fixation on the letters of Paul and Timothy, in which Kreeft et. al. deny the historical influence of belief in the inferiority of women on such passages.
 
If there is interest in continuing the discussion regarding the integrity of the previous posts, it would be advisable to move such discussion to another thread.
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/12 00:39:33 (permalink)
Well said! and thanks for saying it. 
 
The discussion is important in our work and I for one will appreciate if we stay on point.
 
Therese
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/12 01:08:35 (permalink)
  Post 609  Do not try to justify your remarks with it is "tongue in cheek'  "it is part of my special inside knowledge'
Here is some observations of unacceptable behaviour you just demonstrated in your posts:
- call hateful/hurtful/demeaning names, attacking 'intelligence of posters' and faiths of others
-put downs and disparaging, violent comments then claiming "can't you take a joke' it is "tongue in cheek"  no it is not
-centre of universe syndrome, everyone else's ideas are not as good, acting superior and treating others like they do not have the knowledge or truth, demanding others put up posts you can then "critique" as you feel others are 'wrong'
-never admitting fault and blaming everyone but themselves for what goes wrong, denying harm they do
-violate rights of others and refuse to admit the inappropriateness of what  you have done
 
you have 'not opened up lots of things to discuss' at all, your rudeness and arrogance has shut down discussion
 
 of any topic you raise because your credibility and integrity has been completely shattered by your behaviour.
    Patrick
 
 
 
 
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/12 01:16:17 (permalink)
  Hi  Therese 
 
 Can you repost the  paragraph excerpt from Elucidations by Van Balthasar, please?.
 
It is the one that indicates this new misogynist '''''theology'''''''.    More people should know exactly what this states because  I  believe most people are not aware of what is in this .      from   Beatrice
 
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/12 02:18:01 (permalink)
Hello Beatrice,

It's Sophie here.  Thanks for helping us to get back on track. I spotted your post and thought I might be able to help out. Many of Peter Kreeft's arguments are right in line with what Rome is saying. The Vatican subscribes to a view that narrows the symbolism of salvation to: Christ is the Bridegroom.  The Church is the Bride. A man should therefore represent Christ in priestly ministry. 

The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith articulated this in its October 15, 1976 Declaration Inter Insigniores.  For your convenience, our link: Rome's texts in full! sets out the portions of of the Declaration which relate specifically to Bride/Bridegroom imagery.  Following Rome's current theme, the priest acting in the name of the Church is of less importance.  For more about this see here: Rome's texts in full! (though this link bears the same name as the last, it does lead to a different text! Computers!)
 
As many contributers here effective pointed out,  there are many 'flaws' in Rome's reasoning which Peter Kreeft attempts to defend.  Our questions are important in helping Rome to get things right. For one thing, the image of a nuptial mystery does not apply to the priestly ministry. Where allusions are made to it in the liturgy, the symbolism is ambivalent, since all Christians represent both the Groom and the Bride.

In our document, Nuptial Imagery and the Sacramental Priesthood, Dr. Wijngaards takes a critical look at Rome's/Peter Kreeft's argument that a priest should be a man because of the nuptial symbolism. Dr. Wijngaards points out three specific reasons as to the problem features of Rome's/Peter Kreeft's approach.  They are:

As contributers to this thread point out, Rome's/Peter Kreeft's reasoning breaks down in many ways.  For instance, in its line of reasoning, the priest is at one and the same time symbolically masculine (representing Christ the groom) and at the same time symbolically feminine (representing the Church the Bride.)  Is either symbolic position affected or falsified by his biological role? Rome won't let the same hold true for women. We can express our concern in another way:


if a man can be a member of the Church, symbolically feminine, then why can't a woman as a member of the ministerial priesthood, symbolically masculine?

Dr. Wijngaards' conclusion: The symbolism of Christ who relates to the Church as a Bridegroom to his Bride does not invalidate the representation of Christ at the Eucharist by a woman priest. The link to the document is here: the symbolism is ambivalent. Please enjoy!  If you have some questions, please sing out!  I am here to serve!
 
with love and blessings,
~Sophie~
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/12 02:38:28 (permalink)
Dear friends,

Pressing on with this theme, we believe that at the Eucharist the priest acts not only 'in the person of Christ,' but also 'in the person of the Church.'  In a document from our library, Dr. Wijngaards provides his analysis of this. Rome sees the priest's representation of the Church as secondary:


It is true that the priest represents the Church, which is the Body of Christ. But if he does so, it is precisely because he first represents Christ himself, who is the Head and the Shepherd of the Church. The Second Vatican Council used this phrase to make more precise and to complete the expression in persona Christi. It is in this quality that the priest presides over the Christian assembly and celebrates the Eucharistic sacrifice ‘in which the whole Church offers and is herself wholly offered’.” Inter Insigniores § 33.

Dr. Wijngaards looks at:
  • What comes first: representing the Church or representing Christ?
  • At the Eucharistic Prayer the priest acts more directly in the name of the believing community, though ultimately in the name of Christ
    • throughout the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest speaks in the name of the community
    • the words of consecration do not stand on their own

Dr. Wijngaards concludes with a quotation from Ralph A. Kiefer's ‘The Priest as "Another Christ" in Liturgical Prayer’, in Women and Priesthood. Future Directions:


Thus in the articulation of the eucharistic prayer in the Roman rite no clearcut distinction is made between the priest’s representing the praying church and his representing Christ the head and shepherd of the church. The two roles are enacted simultaneously. Even on a view which insists on pinpointing a temporal moment of consecration with the recitation of the verba Christi, there is still no disjunctive representation of Christ as the head and shepherd of the church apart from the priest’s representation of the church as the body and bride of Christ. In reciting the institution narrative, the priest continues to speak on behalf of the praying church. And since, on the level of sign, the representation of Christ is grounded in representation of the Church, it would seem that a woman could perform the priestly role of representing Christ as well as a man.”

The link to the document is here: http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/pers_chu.asp  As always, if you have any questions, please let me know!

with love and blessings,
~Sophie~
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/12 02:50:38 (permalink)
Dear friends,

Two other documents that will be helpful in our explorations are:

In his article, van Eyden provides an assessment as to:
  • a theological anthropology of womanhood
  • 'the genius of woman': a Vatican Discovery (!)
  • the God ordained equality of women

Highlights from the second article I've noted -- this one by Dr. Wijngaards --includes his observation that, 'In recent years the authorities in Rome have produced a new argument for the non-ordination of women, one that was unknown to antiquity. It is based on the symbolic relationship between Christ and the Church as the bridegroom and his bride. The imagery was commented on in Tradition, of course, but never in the context of excluding women from ordination. Also, Rome admits that this is not an argument based on facts, but an argument of ‘congruence’, an ‘analogy of faith.’ In this context, Dr. Wijngaards assesses:
  • what makes a woman a woman from Pope John Paul II's point of view
  • the symbolism of the bridegroom and the bride
  • symbolism run amock?
  • making sense of it all

Dr. Wijngaards reassuringly points out in his conclusion:

By Rome’s own admission, the symbolism of the Bridegroom and the bride is no more than an ‘argument of congruence’. And, as Thomas Aquinas (1224 - 1274 AD) pointed out, “a theology based on symbols does not prove anything”.(33) Moreover, our reflections have shown that the symbolism, in its sexual application, does not have a valid scriptural basis and does not make sense.

Rome often mentions the bridegroom ‘argument’ in one breath with the argument based on acting in persona Christi which we discussed in the previous chapter. It clearly attempts to present the traditional argument in a new garb. But even with this face lift the argument fails. Women can represent Christ, as validly and as fully as men can.

Enjoy the articles!  You will find links to them noted above in their listing.  If you have any questions, please let me know.

with love and blessings,
~Sophie~
post edited by Sophie - 2007/06/12 03:59:41
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/12 03:01:05 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

 Hi  Therese 

Can you repost the  paragraph excerpt from Elucidations by Van Balthasar, please?.

It is the one that indicates this new misogynist '''''theology'''''''.    More people should know exactly what this states because  I  believe most people are not aware of what is in this .      from   Beatrice



Dear Beatrice,

Take note of Dr. Wijngaards' article “Not Man enough to represent the Groom?!” In the section, Symbolism Run Amock, Dr. Wijngaards provides a brief overview of some of the troubling features you mention about Hans Urs von Balthasar's theology. I'll share it with you here:


We may begin by observing that the conclusions drawn from Ephesians 5,21-33 regarding the nuptial mystery go beyond the meaning of the inspired text. In no way does the ‘mystery’ consist in God revealing that he wants to save people as a male. The masculinity of the bridegroom may be part of the image; it is not part of the contents. When Jahweh calls Israel his ‘wayward wife’, does it follow that God is truly male or God’s people truly female? The image speaks about relationship, not sex and gender.
 
Images can be instructive, of course, but they remain no more than images. They are metaphors. Christ is compared to a bridegroom in three Gospel passages, but he is also compared to a shepherd, a judge, a rabbi, a light, a door, a vine, a loaf of bread, a path, a servant, a mother hen and a thief who comes in the night. Some of these images could be worked out as at least equally important to the bridegroom image. The Old Testament often sees God as the owner of a vineyard.(21) This is a rich symbol involving owner, workers, vines, wine. Jesus frequently refers to the image.(22) That Jesus supplied the wine at Cana is highly significant from the perspective of creation, redemption and the outpouring of the Spirit.(23) Moreover, the sign is directly eucharistic. By applying the symbol of ‘the vine nurturing the branches’ to Jesus, the Gospel of John adopts female imagery as elsewhere in the Gospel.(24) The nurturing with ‘flesh and blood’ which is more truly eucharistic than ‘presiding as the bridegroom’ could much better be represented by a woman than by a man. Why should one symbol prevail over the other?

But if we take the Pope’s eucharistic imagery seriously, the symbolic significance of the phallus is now emphasised as it has never been in Christian tradition. “To argue that Christ’s eucharistic gift of self is the action of the bridegroom in such a way that it requires a male body, is to make it an act of coitus and not of self giving in death. The symbolic function of the priesthood is therefore no longer primarily concerned with death but with sex, since male and female bodies both die and therefore either sex could represent the death of Christ.”(25) With the masculinity of the Bridegroom taking central stage, Christ’s kenosis (self emptying) at Mass assumes the overtones of a male orgasm. Hans Urs von Balthasar, one of Rome’s theological advisers, has made the image quite explicit. Von Balthasar was a member of the Papal Theological Commission since 1967 and became one of Pope John Paul II’s favourite theologians. The Pope named him a Cardinal in 1988, a few days before he died. Von Balthasar does not mince his words.


The priestly ministry and the sacrament are means of passing on seed. They are a male preserve. They aim at inducing in the Bride her function as a woman.(26)



What else is his eucharist but, at a higher level, an endless act of fruitful outpouring of his whole flesh, such as a man can only achieve for a moment with a limited organ of his body?(27)

Tina Beattie adds this comment:


The ‘what else ... but’ implies that it is nothing else. This is the eucharist understood not primarily as Christ’s identification with the universal human tragedy of death, but rather as the identification of Christ’s death with the uniquely male experience of penile ejaculation . . . The justification given for the essentialisation of the male priesthood has reduced the symbolic richness of the Mass so that it is indeed nothing but a cosmic male orgasm, as von Balthasar suggests. The female body, lacking the ‘limited organ’ which allows for this experience, cannot represent Christ in the eucharist. Ultimately this means that women have become bystanders in the metaphysical consummation of homosexual love, a marriage between men and God in which the male body is both the masculine bridegroom and the feminine bride, the masculine God and the feminine creature, the masculine Christ and the feminine church. This makes Catholic theology more explicitly phallocentric than has been the case in the past, since the phallus has become the defining symbol of Christ’s giving of self in the Mass.(28)

Beattie calls it homosexual love, because whereas the Pope excludes women from representing the bridegroom, he explicitly includes men when talking of ‘the bride’. “All human beings - both women and men - are called through the Church to be the ‘Bride’ of Christ, the Redeemer of the world. In this way, ‘being the bride’ and thus the ‘feminine’ element, becomes a symbol of all that is ‘human’.”(29) Men have it all, women have nothing.(30)

Beatrice, I hope this helps.  I will find more information for you!

with love and blessings,
~Sophie~ 
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/12 03:07:33 (permalink)
 





Dear friends,

A sidebar: An internet archive von Balthasar's publications is available through  the Ratzinger Fan Club website.  The link is here: http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/Balthasar/index.html

with love and blessings,
~Sophie~
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/12 03:12:47 (permalink)
Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905 - 1988):
 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following from wikipedia.org:

Born in Lucerne, Switzerland on August 12, 1905, he studied at Vienna, Berlin and Zurich, gaining a doctorate in German literature. He joined the Jesuits in 1928, and was ordained in 1936. He worked in Basel as a student chaplain. In 1950 he left the Jesuit order, feeling that God had called him to found a new religious order for laity. He joined the diocese of Chur. From being banned from teaching[1] at this time his reputation rose to the extent that John Paul II asked him to be a cardinal in 1988. However he died in his home in Basel on the 26th June 1988, 2 days before the ceremony. Hans Urs von Balthasar was interred in the Hofkirche cemetery in Lucern.

Along with Karl Rahner and Bernard Lonergan, Balthasar is one of the most important, if controversial, Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century. All three sought to offer an intellectual, faithful response to Western modernism. While Rahner offered a progressive, accommodating position on modernity, and Lonergan worked out a philosophy of history that sought to critically appropriate modernity, Balthasar resisted the reductionism and human focus of modernity, wanting Christianity to challenge modern and all philosophical assumptions.[2]

Balthasar is very eclectic in his approach, sources, and interests and remains difficult to categorize. [3] An example of his eclecticism was his long study and conversation with the influential Reformed Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, of whose work he wrote the first Roman Catholic analysis and response. Although Balthasar's major points of analysis on Karl Barth's work have been disputed, his The Theology of Karl Barth: Exposition and Interpretation (1951) remains a classic work for its sensitivity and insight; Karl Barth himself agreed with its analysis of his own theological enterprise.

Writings and contributions

Balthasar is a controversial figure who some believe departs from the Christian faith. This is particularly the case with respect to Mysterium Paschale, where he asserts that hell may be empty. Some believe this contradicts the Book of Revelation and the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. However, he has never been condemned for this position by the magisterium and he died just before he was to become a cardinal. At Balthasar's funeral, Cardinal Ratzinger said, speaking of Balthasar's work in general, "What the pope intended to express by this mark of distinction, and of honor, remains valid, no longer only private individuals but the Church itself, in its official responsibility, tells us that he is right in what he teaches of the faith."[4] Mysterium Paschale explores the meaning of Holy Saturday, where Jesus Christ dies and descends to the dead, to be resurrected by God the Father and His own power. Balthasar extrapolates that God can endure and conquer godlessness, abandonment, and death.

Balthasar is well known for his his 15 volume systematics (his Trilogy) which is divided into three parts: The Glory of the Lord, the first 7-volume work on 'theological aesthetics' (a theology of belief based on contemplation of the good, the beautiful, and the true). One of the often quoted passages from the entire Trilogy comes from the First Volume (Seeing the Form) of The Glory of the Lord:



Before the beautiful—no, not really before but within the beautiful—the whole person quivers. He not only 'finds' the beautiful moving; rather, he experiences himself as being moved and possessed by it.[5]

In Theo-Drama: Theological Dramatic Theory—the following 5-volume work on 'theodramatics'—the action of God and the human response, especially in the events of Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday are examined. The final volumes are titled: Theo-Logic. These three volumes describing the relation of the nature of Jesus Christ (christology) to reality itself (ontology, or the study of being). The orthodoxy of Balthasar’s theories of Christ’s Descent into Hell and of the hope for universal salvation has been questioned.[6][7]

While of minor significance, he also wrote a foreword for Valentin Tomberg's Méditations sûr les 22 arcanes majeurs du Tarot, a series of personal meditations on the relationship between Christianity and Theosophy.  Tarot is censured as superstitious and possibly diabolic by traditional Christianity. Another distinctive thought in Balthasar's work is that our first experience after birth is the face of love of our mothers, where the I encounters for the first time the Thou, and the Thou smiles in a relationship of love and sustenance.[8]

Balthasar also wrote of the lives of saints and church fathers. Saints appear as an example of the lived Christian life throughout his writings. Instead of merely systematic analysis of theology, Balthasar described his theology as a "kneeling theology," deeply connected to contemplative prayer, and as a "sitting theology," intensely connected to faith seeking understanding guided by the heart and mind of the Catholic Church.[9]

As a Roman Catholic priest and member of a religious order, Balthasar was very concerned that he address spiritual and practical issues. He insisted that his theology never be divorced from the mystical experiences of his long-time friend and convert, the physician Adrienne von Speyr. Many question his devotion to von Speyr and his uncritical acceptance of the validity of her alleged 'mystical experiences'.

Balthasar has varied published works, spanning many decades, fields of study (e.g., literature and literary analysis, lives of the saints, and the Church Fathers), and languages. Balthasar has an enduring legacy as one of the most important Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century. Most, but not all, of his major writings have been translated into English, and the journal he co-founded with Henri de Lubac, Walter Kasper, and Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), Communio, currently appears in twelve languages, including Arabic. [10]

References:

^ "Leaving the Society meant that Balthasar was without a position, a pastorate, a place to live, or an income. Because he had left the Jesuit order, the Catholic Congregation for Seminaries and Universities had banned him from teaching. But he eventually found an ecclesiastical home under a sympathetic bishop and was able to live by a gruelling schedule of lecture tours."[1]
^ (2004) in Edward T. Oakes, SJ, and David Moss: The Cambridge Companion to Hans Urs von Balthasar.
Cambridge University Press, 262. ISBN 0521891477
^ (2004) in Edward T. Oakes, SJ, and David Moss: The Cambridge Companion to Hans Urs von Balthasar.
Cambridge University Press, 2. ISBN 0521891477
^ Allen, John L. Jr. (November 28, 2003). "
The Word From Rome". National Catholic Reporter 3 (15). 
^ (2004) in Edward T. Oakes, SJ, and David Moss: The Cambridge Companion to Hans Urs von Balthasar.
Cambridge University Press, 270. ISBN 0521891477
^
Pitstick, Alyssa Lyra (2007). Light in Darkness: Hans Urs Von Balthasar and the Catholic Doctrine of Christ's Descent into Hell. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0802840396
^
Grisez, Germain Gabriel (1983). The way of the Lord Jesus, Volume 1: Christian Moral Principles. Franciscan Press. ISBN 0819908614
^ (2004) in Edward T. Oakes, SJ, and David Moss: The Cambridge Companion to Hans Urs von Balthasar.
Cambridge University Press, 236. ISBN 0521891477
^ (2004) in Edward T. Oakes, SJ, and David Moss: The Cambridge Companion to Hans Urs von Balthasar.
Cambridge University Press, 265. ISBN 0521891477
^
Colón-Emeric, Edgardo Antonio (May 31, 2005). "Symphonic Truth: Von Balthasar and Christian Humanism". The Christian Century: 30. 
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/12 03:51:53 (permalink)
From: The Conquest of the Bride   by  HANS URS VON BALTHASAR  
“For, to be sure, the woman derives from the man, but the man is then born of the woman. Everything, however, derives from God. Being God, I am the Source and am before every being, and for this reason the man is the glory of God and the source of the woman, and God-become-human is the man, while the Church is a woman, since the woman is the glory of the man.”
 
 
“Man is the source of woman”- Apparently von Balthasar believes in the literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story. His writings certainly do not support the theory of evolution or Genesis I.
 
“Man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man”.  How can one make such statements and then claim it is not about superior or inferior? I find this quite insulting to women.
 
Woman and man together are created in the image and likeness of God. Together, both are the glory of God.
Page: << < ..3132333435 > Showing page 31 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