Women Can Be Priests
Reply to post

Peter Kreeft

Page: < 12345.. > >> Showing page 5 of 35 - Powered by APG vNext Trial
Author
David
New Member
  • Total Posts : 14
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/22 04:43:53
  • Location: uk
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/05 20:51:55 (permalink)
I will defend the Church.

 
Ahem. Politely speaking, I must say, thus far the defence is completely unconvincing.  Shall there be any more which follows? or is that about it in a nutshell?
 
David
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/05 21:10:34 (permalink)
A very simple way to put it is that ""women can't be fathers, only men can be fathers."" Why do you think we call our Priests ""Father."" Because thats who they represent, Christ and our Heavenly Father. This is linked with God's relationship with the Church, in that the Church is Mother and God is Father. God gives us the seed of His life and the Church concieves and brings forth fruit (i.e. the life of us, the members). God has no gender and neither does the Church but in the mystery of this *relationship* they do!

Also Christ is the head of the Church, like the husband is the head of the household (note: I'm saying the ""head"" not the ""dictator"" as some see this analogy as saying. The former is a role and relationship of love the latter is a bully and launderer of power.), the Priest being the representative of Christ (in the capacity of His special role as High-Priest, all Christians are representatives of Christ but only Priests in this special role) is also representative of His fatherhood of the Church.

So just like in the Eucharist we don't use crackers and ribena in place of the bread and wine Christ used, we don't have a woman representing the Father and representing Christ, but a man.

This is a very short address of the issue, but it delves into the depths of the nature of man, the equal dignity and separate roles of men and women, the nature of the relationship between God and the Church, the Sacraments of the Church, the authority of the Church and all this in relation to Christ's life. In other words alot of stuff!

Another thing is, its not an issue of ability, as some would say ""I know women who would be much better than Father SoAndSo at ministering to people."" That might be quite true, but it doesn't matter, its an issue of what is discussed above (and more I'm sure).

I hope this clears some things up.
 
Robert
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/05 21:12:44 (permalink)
There is no way that only having male priests is a sexist thing. It's something that came from Christ himself and we can't just decide that, opps, Christ was wrong. If we could then we could change anything we didn't like. Men can't get pregnant and women can't be priests... Sorry, girls. Them's the breaks.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/05 21:38:22 (permalink)
Peter Kreeft reduces Jesus to a phallic symbol.
 
Jesus was the Incarnation: God who took on our humanity. It's as simple as that.  The Incarnation wasn't just about God becoming a 'man.' It was about God becoming a human being. Both men and women reflect the Incarnation.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/05 21:51:20 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

A very simple way to put it is that ""women can't be fathers, only men can be fathers."" Why do you think we call our Priests ""Father."" Because thats who they represent, Christ and our Heavenly Father. This is linked with God's relationship with the Church, in that the Church is Mother and God is Father. God gives us the seed of His life and the Church concieves and brings forth fruit (i.e. the life of us, the members). God has no gender and neither does the Church but in the mystery of this *relationship* they do!

Also Christ is the head of the Church, like the husband is the head of the household (note: I'm saying the ""head"" not the ""dictator"" as some see this analogy as saying. The former is a role and relationship of love the latter is a bully and launderer of power.), the Priest being the representative of Christ (in the capacity of His special role as High-Priest, all Christians are representatives of Christ but only Priests in this special role) is also representative of His fatherhood of the Church.

So just like in the Eucharist we don't use crackers and ribena in place of the bread and wine Christ used, we don't have a woman representing the Father and representing Christ, but a man.

This is a very short address of the issue, but it delves into the depths of the nature of man, the equal dignity and separate roles of men and women, the nature of the relationship between God and the Church, the Sacraments of the Church, the authority of the Church and all this in relation to Christ's life. In other words alot of stuff!

Another thing is, its not an issue of ability, as some would say ""I know women who would be much better than Father SoAndSo at ministering to people."" That might be quite true, but it doesn't matter, its an issue of what is discussed above (and more I'm sure).

I hope this clears some things up.

Robert


 
You are mixing Pauline theology with true theology and are not doing a very good job of it.  There are several words for "Head" in Greek (not exactly Jesus' language to begin with).  When Paul mentions the man as the head, the word used translates as "vanguard", a military term, as in head of the troops:  that is, to defend the family, not in any sense that says that men have superior intelligence to make right decisions.  (Well, that's been proven in other forums).  Anyway, the term implies the physical attributes needed for defense under attack.   So, your argument is unconvincing.
 
Your post shows another case of testosterone poisoning.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/05 21:52:30 (permalink)
Re Peter Kreeft: He's the king of doublespeak.  He reduces women to only at a biological level.  Who benefits from this? No one. Kreeft's ideas (and they aren't his alone -- you are quite right -- von balthasar, bouyer, pope john paul ii and more...) propose a human (not Divine) created paradigm that rationalizes the "masculine" concept of God.
 
Since when don't women "transcend" biology.? This is 1984 all over again.  Jesus neither said nor did anything that was essentially masculine in the common meaning of that word.  He is God who became human. 
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/05 21:53:09 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

There is no way that only having male priests is a sexist thing. It's something that came from Christ himself and we can't just decide that, opps, Christ was wrong. If we could then we could change anything we didn't like. Men can't get pregnant and women can't be priests... Sorry, girls. Them's the breaks.

 
Another sexist post!!!  Both men and women can be parents.  Getting pregnant has nothing to do with it.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/05 21:55:51 (permalink)
Funny how those historically in power get to define who God is, and to make pronouncements about who/what women are.
 
Jesus Christ didn't make any such pronouncements. And furthermore, the more we look at it, the more it looks like Jesus was trying to tell men something.  He came in a male body but without any of those irritating stereotypical male behaviours. Maybe he was trying to us something about how men need to change in their attitudes towards women?
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/05 22:01:20 (permalink)
I think folks like Kreeft go through all kinds of contortions to come up with justifications that they hope proponents of female priests will accept.  Frankly, people like Kreeft just end up saying things that are way too much of a stretch, sound like a bunch of hokum, and ultimately make themselves look like they're not capable of anything but weak arguments.

Frankly I think this is mostly a waste of time.

Pope John Paul II wrote defiitively on the subject. If his exhortation continues to be rejected, why would we think proponents of women's ordination would accept any other arguments?

Its not the way they want it so to them it must be wrong. No philosophical or logical appeals are going to change that.

Listen, its a matter of accepting Church authority. It' a matter of faith.  You either accept what Jesus did or you don't.  He chose  12 male apostles.  End of discussion.

You either accept Church teaching or you don't. Once you've decided that the Church can and does teach error, its pretty much pointless discussing any particular doctrine.  Why? Look at the evidence found in the diversity of sincerely believed theologies of many Protestant denominations.

Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/05 22:31:13 (permalink)
Church leaders and Popes in the past have been wrong in their teachings and practices (e.g. slavery, persecution of women as witches, persecution of scientists, moral and intellectual inferiority of women). In the matter of ordination of women to the priesthood they are wrong again. The positive side of this is that they can change. It is the duty of every Catholic of reason and good conscience not to abandon the Church but to speak out against such fallacious teachings.
 
Exclusion of women from the sacrament of Holy Orders does not come from God, it comes from man.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 00:27:36 (permalink)
I did this for a paper at school and so I'm going to let you read it here because this is what the Church teaches.
 
We are either male or female; there is no neuter human being; so if God is going to become one of us He has to become either male or female, because that is how He created us: "male and female He created them," (Gen. 1). We are essentially sexual beings, not some de-sexed persons. Maleness is important for being human, just as femaleness is. Humans are animal persons who are either male or female as to gender. That is why we are not angels. Since being male or female is essential to being human, in becoming human God the Son must become a definite man or woman, and He became a definite man. And coming as a definite man, He reveals Who God is and who we are simultaneously. We are not amoebas who multiply by simple division, but are sexual beings (which biologically introduces a differentiation, as opposed to uniformity) who are individual persons. For God to become one of us He by definition has to become either a definite man or a definite woman. He became a definite man.
 
Nothing prevents a man from representing all mankind; in fact it is common for a man to represent a whole people. But man can also represent God as Creator and Absolute Origin of life. And this a woman can not represent. Why? For the simple reason that she is not the absolute origin in human generation but the collaborating and contributing cause, as it is the man who impregnates. Thus it is most fitting that God in becoming a human being became a male rather than a female.
Moreover, there is a different sort of love than the man's love toward his offspring which a mother has towards the new life conceived within her by male impregnation. The necessary physical intimacy with the newly conceived person is absent for the man during the pregnancy and after. Related to this, the normal mother has an almost instinctive love for the child conceived within her, so that the newborn is "automatically" loved by her and nourished by her own body (until the contemporary era) and this is a psychic as well as physical necessity practically speaking.
 
That means that the mother's love has the symbolism of necessary love. With the father this is not at all so certain. There is more an element of a choice about his loving his child, and the sort of love he has manifests the freedom of choice more than the mother's love does. So there is a second symbolism, that of free choice, in the fittingness of God becoming a definite male revealing God the Creator's love as non-necessitated love but one of pure free choice in His decision to create us. He did not have to create us.
 
The fact that God is completely distinct from His Creation, which He freely decides to bring in to being because of a free choice love combined with the absolute origin, makes it most fitting that He come as a definite man, so as simultaneously to represent God and all mankind. The woman can not symbolize this by her very being. She can not symbolize both God and human, can not symbolize by her mere existence as a female absolute origin and free choice love. She rather symbolizes by her very existence as a female cooperating, receptive cause of life and necessary, i.e., spontaneous love towards creation as material being. In short, she aptly symbolizes creation, nature, not the Creator or First Cause of creation as completely non-necessitated or obliged to create or love us creatures. To sum up from the viewpoint of Creation, it is most fitting that God become a male to reveal being Creator.
 
But there is a second set of symbols, related to the first, concerning redemption. The New and Eternal Covenant in His Blood is a Wedding Covenant. God in seeking out the lost sheep (fallen mankind) has freely chosen to seek her out as a groom does a bride, and desired to have us spent eternity with Him in a Wedding Feast without end. Christ as Redeemer, then, is a Groom, i.e., a Spouse. This a woman can not symbolize by her sexual nature as a woman, i.e., in her very being. Thus from the viewpoint of Redemption as well as Creation it is impossible for a woman to symbolize by her existence God the Creator or Redeemer. It is therefore most fitting that God become a definite male in Christ, fitting to Who He is and what He intends to do.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 00:37:12 (permalink)
I have more to share about why only men can be priests.
 
The peopel who support the ordination of women to the priesthood make the mistake of thinking that the priesthood is a functional role.  They have a functional understanding of the priesthood, that it's a role someone does, and then they have a political understanding of why it is restricted to men, i.e., a power interest. From these assumptions they do not see how a woman can not do what a man does should she have the talents, training and motivation for the vocation, nor why she would be excluded in principle except by unjust discrimination by power-invested hierarchs (or perhaps, for some, from a motive of mindless tradition).
 
This way of thinking is as far removed from the understanding of the Church as one can get. Why? Because the Church understands the Sacraments to operate by reason of their symbolism. And what they "operate" is a supernatural reality beyond the entire natural order.
 
I talked about Baptism with somebody else. There is nothing in the element of water as to its natural properties or human uses that can have a supernatural effect by itself. It makes natural life possible (a few days without it and we're dead); it cleans bodies, etc.. There is much that it can symbolize for us from these uses, and from the places and movement of it where it is found and from human associations. But those symbolisms have no supernatural meaning or import of themselves. But God has chosen (aptly, of course) to take this element and employ it for supernatural results through a symbolism He defines by words and actions: Baptism (literally, "immersion") in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This association of moving water (i.e., Living Water) with the Triune Name of God and the action of immersion or pouring or sprinkling symbolizes by reason of a meaning God imposes, immersion into the Paschal Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, incorporation therefore into Him, becoming a member of the Church by such an incorporation, and most importantly a Divine birth in the soul by grace, such that the Trinity really dwells there, as in a living temple, infusing His own life, and many Divine powers of Faith, Hope Charity, the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, other virtues, etc., removing all sin, Original or personal, and allowing one to receive the other Sacraments.
 
Again consider the following re Baptism:
(1) None of its effects -- which are all supernatural -- can occur, could occur, except by the express Choice of God.
(2) All of these effects occur by the symbolism which God puts into the action and words of Baptism, a symbolism connected with the actual human being, Jesus Christ.
 
Let's suppose someone asks for Baptism but water is unavailable, but we have some vegetable oil. The suggestion is to use the oil instead of water. Result? Nothing! Why? Because of (1) and (2) There are no natural properties of any created element that can produce a supernatural effect; neither can human willing make a symbolism (through intention) so as to produce any supernatural effect. Only God can do that.
 
It's the same in the the Sacrament of the Eucharist. If we're in China and have only rice and tea, no wheat bread or grape wine available, there would be no Mass. Reason: supernatural effects require supernatural causes and the supernatural causes given to the Church have wheat bread and grape wine as God-chosen symbols meaning what He intended the words and actions to mean; there is nothing in the natural properties of rice and tea or even wheat bread and grape wine as such or imputed human symbolisms that can of themselves bring about supernatural effects.
 
Turning to the priesthood: God chose twelve men to symbolize Christ as High Priest (vis-a-vis both God and the Church) as Head of the Body and as Groom to the Bride. (See especially Ephesians 5 toward the end of the chapter on the Great Mystery and spousal symbolism.) Women can not symbolize the Head (the Man Jesus Christ) to the Body, nor the Groom (the same Man Jesus Christ) to the Bride (the Church).
 
I wish to point out that not even any man can symbolize this. Only those chosen by the Church and ordained through apostolic succession. So going back to the example of the Eucharist, should a community of Catholics lack an ordained man (it happened in both Japan and Korea for hundreds of years, as well as in much of England and Scandinavia during the same period), they could not have a layman, or ordained deacon even, celebrate the Mass with any supernatural effect. Reason: supernatural causes alone bring supernatural effects and God has chosen to bring about the supernatural effect of extending the Priesthood of His Incarnate Son only through the symbolism He choose for Christ as Head to Body and Groom to Bride through the laying on of hands upon men by the Twelve and their successors.
 
Just as it is not by the natural properties of water or the human symbolism of Baptism (the Jews had a baptism of repentance) that the supernatural effects of Sacramental Baptism occur, neither is it by the natural qualifications of any human being, male or female, as such that any supernatural effects of Priesthood take place. That is why it is not by the natural qualifications of a woman functioning in the role of a priest (preaching, ministering, etc.) that there would by any supernatural effects. Only the men the Church accepts as living symbols of the God-Man Jesus Christ as Head to the Body of the Church, and Groom to the Church as His Bride through sacramental Ordination by Apostolic Succession have the supernatural causality.
 
It is obvious that a woman can't symbolize being Christ the Groom (inescapably male); neither also the supernatural Headship (i.e., as reference point and absolute origin -- rather than superiority - like the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit in the Trinity). So it is not a put-down of the natural or attained abilities of a woman who could function in the activities of the office as well - or in some cases (preaching) better -- than a man or particular men from a social point of view. It is the lack of symbolism in being a woman of the specific Man Jesus Christ Who as a man is Priest, Head to the Body, Groom to the Bride, Son to the Father, Father of the World to Come. The woman can of course symbolize the Body and the Bride of Christ and she does, and Mary is the Woman and the symbol of the Church in its highest.
 
That is why Christ chose only men to attend the Last Supper where He established the Eucharist and Priesthood. To the objection that "only Jews were there, so only Jews should be priests" the answer is easy: the Divine symbolism of Christ as Head and Groom is not removed by the absence of Jewishness, while it is by the absence of a) a Baptized male believer of sufficient age, b) being chosen and ordained by Apostolic Succession, through the laying on of hands for the office. And that is how the Church took it from the beginning with the ordination of gentile men while the Apostles were still alive and refraining from having priestesses.
 
The tradition of the office of the priesthood as a Sacrament, a sacred and supernatural symbol of Christ, i.e., the specific man Jesus Who is God Incarnate, is why the faithful have put up with great deficiencies in their priests down through the ages, because they sense the supernatural effects are through the symbolism and not through the natural or attained qualities of the individual priest. The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered, the Body and Blood of Christ is transubstantiated, sins are forgiven, by a validly ordained priest through the Divinely chosen symbolic actions of the Sacraments, regardless if the priest himself is a jerk, or worse. That human condition doesn't stop the supernatural effects from taking place between Christ and the faithful. That is why Bishops sometimes value even bad priests in desperate circumstances, if through discreteness no scandal or moral harm takes place (although America seems to have reached new lows in a couple of cases).
 
So the Church does not see itself competent to ordain women. That's why deacons and laymen can't officiate at the Eucharist or forgive sins, or replace water for wine in the Eucharist, or oil for water in Baptism. There would be no supernatural effects if she did make those changes since it is not by the functioning of natural or attained talents or human intentions, but by the Divine chosen symbolism that Divine Mysteries are mediated in the Church. Thus it is not a put down or injustice of women to discriminate on the basis of supernatural symbolism received by the Church from God Himself. And the natural or attained talents of women can be expressed in other ways to great effect as they have been from the beginning.
 
This sacramental awareness of the Priesthood corrects the political understanding of Church leadership as primarily a position of power. It is not.  It is a position of authority: kingship, Priesthood (the sanctifying role of offering the sacrifice) and prophecy (teaching with God's authority God's Mind on things, all as service to the flock, not as a political power in society. Protestants deny all this. The minister is chosen solely on the basis of a community's evaluation of his talents and functions towards their needs; they go to him for that and remove him when they don't see the results they want. In that understanding of ministry it really would be male chauvinism to insist on excluding women on principle or because that's the way it always was done in the past (traditionalism rather than Tradition).
 
by Padro
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 01:26:39 (permalink)
Christ, the perfect human image of the Father is male because God the Father is masculine; God is 'He' not 'She.'
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 01:28:21 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

I have more to share about why only men can be priests.

The peopel who support the ordination of women to the priesthood make the mistake of thinking that the priesthood is a functional role.  They have a functional understanding of the priesthood, that it's a role someone does, and then they have a political understanding of why it is restricted to men, i.e., a power interest. From these assumptions they do not see how a woman can not do what a man does should she have the talents, training and motivation for the vocation, nor why she would be excluded in principle except by unjust discrimination by power-invested hierarchs (or perhaps, for some, from a motive of mindless tradition).

This way of thinking is as far removed from the understanding of the Church as one can get. Why? Because the Church understands the Sacraments to operate by reason of their symbolism. And what they "operate" is a supernatural reality beyond the entire natural order.

I talked about Baptism with somebody else. There is nothing in the element of water as to its natural properties or human uses that can have a supernatural effect by itself. It makes natural life possible (a few days without it and we're dead); it cleans bodies, etc.. There is much that it can symbolize for us from these uses, and from the places and movement of it where it is found and from human associations. But those symbolisms have no supernatural meaning or import of themselves. But God has chosen (aptly, of course) to take this element and employ it for supernatural results through a symbolism He defines by words and actions: Baptism (literally, "immersion") in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This association of moving water (i.e., Living Water) with the Triune Name of God and the action of immersion or pouring or sprinkling symbolizes by reason of a meaning God imposes, immersion into the Paschal Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, incorporation therefore into Him, becoming a member of the Church by such an incorporation, and most importantly a Divine birth in the soul by grace, such that the Trinity really dwells there, as in a living temple, infusing His own life, and many Divine powers of Faith, Hope Charity, the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, other virtues, etc., removing all sin, Original or personal, and allowing one to receive the other Sacraments.

Again consider the following re Baptism:
(1) None of its effects -- which are all supernatural -- can occur, could occur, except by the express Choice of God.
(2) All of these effects occur by the symbolism which God puts into the action and words of Baptism, a symbolism connected with the actual human being, Jesus Christ.

Let's suppose someone asks for Baptism but water is unavailable, but we have some vegetable oil. The suggestion is to use the oil instead of water. Result? Nothing! Why? Because of (1) and (2) There are no natural properties of any created element that can produce a supernatural effect; neither can human willing make a symbolism (through intention) so as to produce any supernatural effect. Only God can do that.

It's the same in the the Sacrament of the Eucharist. If we're in China and have only rice and tea, no wheat bread or grape wine available, there would be no Mass. Reason: supernatural effects require supernatural causes and the supernatural causes given to the Church have wheat bread and grape wine as God-chosen symbols meaning what He intended the words and actions to mean; there is nothing in the natural properties of rice and tea or even wheat bread and grape wine as such or imputed human symbolisms that can of themselves bring about supernatural effects.

Turning to the priesthood: God chose twelve men to symbolize Christ as High Priest (vis-a-vis both God and the Church) as Head of the Body and as Groom to the Bride. (See especially Ephesians 5 toward the end of the chapter on the Great Mystery and spousal symbolism.) Women can not symbolize the Head (the Man Jesus Christ) to the Body, nor the Groom (the same Man Jesus Christ) to the Bride (the Church).

I wish to point out that not even any man can symbolize this. Only those chosen by the Church and ordained through apostolic succession. So going back to the example of the Eucharist, should a community of Catholics lack an ordained man (it happened in both Japan and Korea for hundreds of years, as well as in much of England and Scandinavia during the same period), they could not have a layman, or ordained deacon even, celebrate the Mass with any supernatural effect. Reason: supernatural causes alone bring supernatural effects and God has chosen to bring about the supernatural effect of extending the Priesthood of His Incarnate Son only through the symbolism He choose for Christ as Head to Body and Groom to Bride through the laying on of hands upon men by the Twelve and their successors.

Just as it is not by the natural properties of water or the human symbolism of Baptism (the Jews had a baptism of repentance) that the supernatural effects of Sacramental Baptism occur, neither is it by the natural qualifications of any human being, male or female, as such that any supernatural effects of Priesthood take place. That is why it is not by the natural qualifications of a woman functioning in the role of a priest (preaching, ministering, etc.) that there would by any supernatural effects. Only the men the Church accepts as living symbols of the God-Man Jesus Christ as Head to the Body of the Church, and Groom to the Church as His Bride through sacramental Ordination by Apostolic Succession have the supernatural causality.

It is obvious that a woman can't symbolize being Christ the Groom (inescapably male); neither also the supernatural Headship (i.e., as reference point and absolute origin -- rather than superiority - like the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit in the Trinity). So it is not a put-down of the natural or attained abilities of a woman who could function in the activities of the office as well - or in some cases (preaching) better -- than a man or particular men from a social point of view. It is the lack of symbolism in being a woman of the specific Man Jesus Christ Who as a man is Priest, Head to the Body, Groom to the Bride, Son to the Father, Father of the World to Come. The woman can of course symbolize the Body and the Bride of Christ and she does, and Mary is the Woman and the symbol of the Church in its highest.

That is why Christ chose only men to attend the Last Supper where He established the Eucharist and Priesthood. To the objection that "only Jews were there, so only Jews should be priests" the answer is easy: the Divine symbolism of Christ as Head and Groom is not removed by the absence of Jewishness, while it is by the absence of a) a Baptized male believer of sufficient age, b) being chosen and ordained by Apostolic Succession, through the laying on of hands for the office. And that is how the Church took it from the beginning with the ordination of gentile men while the Apostles were still alive and refraining from having priestesses.

The tradition of the office of the priesthood as a Sacrament, a sacred and supernatural symbol of Christ, i.e., the specific man Jesus Who is God Incarnate, is why the faithful have put up with great deficiencies in their priests down through the ages, because they sense the supernatural effects are through the symbolism and not through the natural or attained qualities of the individual priest. The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered, the Body and Blood of Christ is transubstantiated, sins are forgiven, by a validly ordained priest through the Divinely chosen symbolic actions of the Sacraments, regardless if the priest himself is a jerk, or worse. That human condition doesn't stop the supernatural effects from taking place between Christ and the faithful. That is why Bishops sometimes value even bad priests in desperate circumstances, if through discreteness no scandal or moral harm takes place (although America seems to have reached new lows in a couple of cases).

So the Church does not see itself competent to ordain women. That's why deacons and laymen can't officiate at the Eucharist or forgive sins, or replace water for wine in the Eucharist, or oil for water in Baptism. There would be no supernatural effects if she did make those changes since it is not by the functioning of natural or attained talents or human intentions, but by the Divine chosen symbolism that Divine Mysteries are mediated in the Church. Thus it is not a put down or injustice of women to discriminate on the basis of supernatural symbolism received by the Church from God Himself. And the natural or attained talents of women can be expressed in other ways to great effect as they have been from the beginning.

This sacramental awareness of the Priesthood corrects the political understanding of Church leadership as primarily a position of power. It is not.  It is a position of authority: kingship, Priesthood (the sanctifying role of offering the sacrifice) and prophecy (teaching with God's authority God's Mind on things, all as service to the flock, not as a political power in society. Protestants deny all this. The minister is chosen solely on the basis of a community's evaluation of his talents and functions towards their needs; they go to him for that and remove him when they don't see the results they want. In that understanding of ministry it really would be male chauvinism to insist on excluding women on principle or because that's the way it always was done in the past (traditionalism rather than Tradition).

by Padro

 
So, are you saying that you are brainwashed to think that it requires a "magic wand" to be a priest?
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 01:45:25 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

Christ, the perfect human image of the Father is male because God the Father is masculine; God is 'He' not 'She.'

 
 
God is spirit, neither male nor female. God is not a masculine spirit. Women are made in the image of God, just like men. Both may represent Christ, our savior and friend. He took on our humanity for the salvation of all. God is love and that love is perfect. It does not discriminate against women. It accepts and includes us all for we are all God’s children.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 02:40:21 (permalink)
God, who deliberately designed sexuality, also deliberately designed to incarnate himself as a male. Jesus Christ is still a male today. He still has his human body in heaven and it is a male body.  Like it or not. That's the way it is.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 02:54:38 (permalink)
Human Anthropology -- How someone answers "what is man?" is a sensitive indicator of what is one's true philosophy. If one has the mind of the Church, or rather is deeply involved in the struggle to submit one's will and heart to God, then that person will start to see man as something more than a "rational animal" - more than a collection of genetically determined cells. Only at this point can one really begin to see the true role of gender, ecclesiastical service, etc. Until then, one's modernist philosophy just bounces off the wall of Truth.
 
Until then, Kreeft's words will probably just sound like a rationalization of "patriarchal hierarchy".  But it's not.
 
Please, you have my sympathy and prayers.  I understand how truly truly hard it can be for some people -- especially women's ordination proponents -- to submit their will to God (and by extension, one's philosophy of nature/man/society).
 
It is hard, truly hard.  Take it from me.  Without God's help, it is utterly impossible in this world. May the Good Lord Have Mercy on your souls!!  I pray for your salvation.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 03:08:55 (permalink)
God’s greatest commandment is love. If you would submit yourself to God’s love, you would understand the problem with your thinking.
 
Christ did not become a man to give men special status over women in his Church. Women can and will receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. I will pray for you as well.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 04:07:40 (permalink)
Genesis 1:27:
God created man in his image;
in the divine image hee created him;
male and female he created them.

I wonder, where does it say that because the female gestates the offspring that it negates that she is made in the image of God? Inquiring minds want to know. And, how can that matter in regard to the priesthood? This is the lamest excuse I've ever heard for misogyny. Get a life, boys --- sexist remarks only show how close you are to swinging from the trees and eating one another.

And, as to the famous "12" being all male, it was a condition of the culture in which Jesus lived that women could not be legal witnesses; therefore, even though Jesus had female apostles, they were downplayed in the written accounts.

The "12" stood for the legal representatives of the twelve tribes, should Jesus have come into power as the king of the nation. This has nothing to do with the twelve being the only apostles. It is a figurative, representative, govermental proposition.

By reading the Gospel of John, we get a clearer picture of how things worked on the more spiritual level. There, no apostles are mentioned whatsoever, only disciples.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 04:10:51 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Guest

God’s greatest commandment is love. If you would submit yourself to God’s love, you would understand the problem with your thinking.

Christ did not become a man to give men special status over women in his Church. Women can and will receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. I will pray for you as well.

javascript:void(AddText(''))
Not only 'will they', they already do!!!
Page: < 12345.. > >> Showing page 5 of 35 - Powered by APG vNext Trial
Guest
Quick Reply: (Open Full Version)
  Enter the random characters shown
Submit Post
Jump to:
© 2019 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