Women Can Be Priests
Reply to post

Peter Kreeft

Page: << < ..678910.. > >> Showing page 6 of 35 - Powered by APG vNext Trial
Author
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 04:11:54 (permalink)
To each person who writes about God's and Christ's essential masculinity:  you are ignoring what it says in Scripture.  Many times, God is described as a mother bear, a mother eagle, a mother hen, a mother, a woman looking for a lost coin.
 
This is a huge loophole, a huge flaw in the ointment, a glaring lack of attention to significant detail in your argument.Not one of you has explained this.  Why not?  Until you explain this, you continue to base your opinions on your own assumptions.  And that's not enough to be convincing.  If you love this Church and you care about unity, please explain this in a way that is convincing.  So far, I haven't seen it.
 
With my full respect and Christian love,
still trying to comprehend/udnerstand where you and Peter Kreeft are coming from
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 04:16:04 (permalink)
Dear friends, 

At the risk of being repetitive, I have a hunch that some of us gathered here are not familiar with the Vatican's 1975 Report of the Pontifical Biblical Commission to Pope Paul VI.  A copy of it is here: Report of the Pontifical Biblical Commission

In the late 60's and early 70's, the civil rights movement was breaking new ground.  Prominent features on the Vatican's horizon were new voices speaking out for women's rights. The Anglican Communion began to embrace the ordination of women. Because Catholic critics were clamouring,  Pope Paul VI astutely identified the need for a definitive, conclusive and rational response to charges that Rome was sexist for its failure to open its doors to women priests.  Assessing that a thorough review of Scripture might neatly sew up the case, Paul commissioned this study by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC.)  As you will read, in its Report, the PBC concluded that the ordination of women could NOT be excluded on the basis of Scripture. 

If you have questions, please sing out!  I am happy to help. 

with love and blessings,
~Sophie~
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 04:23:26 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

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).

..................

 
 
The concepts of male/female relationships are most troubling here.
 
Man is not the absolute origin of human generation. New life comes about as the result of the perfect and beautiful union between a man and a woman. It is not simply depositing sperm in the woman or extracting sperm from the man. Each gives to the other. It is a relationship of love support, comfort, pleasure, and fulfillment. The two come together in equal and mutual consent. It is not forced for that would be rape.
 
Biologically both man and woman contribute to the creation of new life. Neither the sperm nor the eggs, in and of themselves, constitute new life. Each contributes equally to the formation of a new human being. God is the sole Creator of man and woman. Man is not the creator of woman. Man and woman reflect two parts of God’s creation, both made in God’s image, that come together as one to create new life.     
 
Good men and women love their children just as God loves us. Women are not forced to love their children because the baby grows within them. They love their children out of their own free will. Unfortunately some women do not and resort to abortion to terminate a pregnancy. 
 
God’s love is boundless. It is profoundly intimate, just like that of any woman or man for their children or each other. God is not detached from us but intimately involved. God nurtures us and cares for us and gives us physical and spiritual nourishment. The nature of God is equally reflected in both men and women. To deny this is to deny the nature of God. Both men and women may represent God.
 
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 04:31:21 (permalink)
I have to say that some of this Peter Kreeft/von Balthasar stuff is creeping me right out.  I don't know if I want to go to mass thinking about the priest representing Christ and being 'impregnated.'  Erections of male organs.  Orgasms. Women having to 'receive' the 'love' being 'showered' on them.  Yechh.   Totally disgusting and nothing I ever heard Jesus talk about. 
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 04:32:32 (permalink)
it's actually repulsive.  Anyone who buys into this drivel is warped.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 06:25:22 (permalink)
The proposition that women cannot be priests because they have babies is actually talking about ritual purity laws that are not even in play. It is menstruation that is at issue. SOooooo, suppose a priest has a bloody hangnail, bleeding hemorhoids, is recovering from hernia surgery, or has bleeding gums or even a wick to drain a cyst...

Or suppose he scratched his butt on a rose thorn just before leaving for the morning liturgy. Who takes over for him in such cases?
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 06:31:00 (permalink)
Since they claim that life begins as a person with a soul at the moment of fertilization and earliest development for everyone, as embryos, begin as female, only to be changed by hormones at a later stage,, there is no one qualified to become 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 06:32:05 (permalink)
brilliant!
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 06:32:35 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Guest

Since they claim that life begins as a person with a soul at the moment of fertilization and earliest development for everyone, as embryos, begin as female, only to be changed by hormones at a later stage,, there is no one qualified to become a priest.


Since Jesus started life as a female embryo, then the problem seems to be solved. Only females can become priests!!! ;-)
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 06:34:15 (permalink)
even more brilliant!!!!
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 06:41:34 (permalink)
Since "Apostle" means "one who is sent", and we have the witness of Paul, prior to the Gospels, who calls Junia a highly esteemed apostle, and then we have the witness of the Gospels, per se, written later, that indicate Mary Magdalene as the first apostle to deliver the news of the resurrection. How much more proof that Jesus chose women as apostles do we need!
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 07:20:53 (permalink)
Now God is called "He," He is the "Father," because He is masculine.


Thanks for sharing this Padro.

I have been reflecting on what you have written.  Can you put your explanation into the context of Pope John Paul II's Mulieris Dignitatem where he writes that God is spirit and has 'no property typical of the body, neither feminine nor masculine.'?

I am also curious:  if the  Church is a 'she' -- meaning that the laypeople -- women and men -- are the 'Bride' -- why does the Catechism insist on using the opposite gender exclusive language, in other words 'he'?  If we (that is everyone except the priest) are the 'she' Bride, then doesn't it make sense and wouldn't it be more consistent if the Catechism followed the same rule and used the same gender exclusive terms 'she' and 'woman?'  Right now, the Catechism was insistently written using 'he' and 'man' throughout.  Given what Kreeft is saying about Bride, the catechism makes no sense.

After all, if we are a 'she' in the source and summit of our faith (the eucharist) then we should all be a 'she' in the Catechism -- don't you think?

Wondering,
Therese
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 07:32:39 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Therese

Thanks for sharing this Padro.

I have been reflecting on what you have written.  Can you put your explanation into the context of Pope John Paul II's Mulieris Dignitatem where he writes that God is spirit and has 'no property typical of the body, neither feminine nor masculine.'?

I am also curious:  if the  Church is a 'she' -- meaning that the laypeople -- women and men -- are the 'Bride' -- why does the Catechism insist on using the opposite gender exclusive language?  If we (that is everyone except the priest) is a 'she' Bride, wouldn't it make more sense and be more consistent if the gender exclusive terms 'she' and 'woman' were used throughout the Cathechism instead of ' the words 'he' and 'man' as it now does?

After all, if we are a 'she' in the source and summit of our faith (the eucharist) then we should all be a 'she' in the Catechism -- don't you think?

Wondering,
Therese


If all embryos begin as female, and then, as baptized Christians we are the "Bride", then the default pronoun should be "she" as well. Linguistics have it backwards from either of these mitigating circumstances. So, whether the catechism has used the ordinarily recognized default pronoun as its basis or not, it become incorrect to use "he" for the default. We should call for a rewrite!

Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 07:39:24 (permalink)
yes!  In light of what von Balthasar and Kreeft are saying about the mass, I'd like to be a fly on the wall when the Pontifical Congregation for Re-writes meets to discuss how they'll deflect that request! 
 
What's that old saying about having your cake and wanting to eat it, too.
 
It's a dangerous thing when the laity becomes too informed!
 

 
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 07:43:10 (permalink)
Why, when I read through Peter Kreeft and the arguments made by his defenders, does the word 'hogwash' keep coming to mind?
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 07:44:42 (permalink)
I suppose I could try to look upon it as a 'creative effort' -- what would the grade be?  D+? C-?

No promotion to the next Grade level until remedial studies are undertaken? 

Repeat the year's work?  What would Dr. Kreeft suggest?   
 
I wonder if he 'gets it' as to how demeaning his spin is to women?
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 07:51:53 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Therese

I suppose I could try to look upon it as a 'creative effort' -- what would the grade be?  D+? C-?

No promotion to the next Grade level until remedial studies are undertaken? 

Repeat the year's work?  What would Dr. Kreeft suggest?   

I wonder if he 'gets it' as to how demeaning his spin is to women?


How about if we get to do this like the Olympics, holding up the cards with the scores? 3.6? 4.2? What no 6's?

Oh, over there! ... the Italian contingent is holding up three 6's!!! Hey, it makes "666"!!! Now, that's a Revelation!
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 07:52:17 (permalink)
is Peter Kreeft what you'd call a cock and bull story?
 
He is demeaning not only to women but also to men and to Christ and God, too.
 
 
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 07:56:15 (permalink)
you know what:  it is actually demeaning to the Vatican, too.
 
They take such pride in being so intellectually and rationally gifted.  von Balthasar + Kreeft = one big 'ouch!'
 
 
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14705
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/05/06 20:27:15 (permalink)
the specter of all this -- men making all the decisions -- is very distasteful.

Especially when one learns how poorly they have exercised their 'authority.'

It is glaringly obvious that they have done a poor job and have not met the task of being shepherds of the flock. Men can play all the roles as they choose. Women are confined to their quarters.

What is women's genius? I think it means that a woman knows that her place is in the home.

Page: << < ..678910.. > >> Showing page 6 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