As part of getting to know TeresaBenedicta it was revealed that she is a Catholic with aspirations towards the ranks of the church.
I myself hold a humanistic view that all people ought to be looked upon as equals and given equal opportunity. Feeling that Catholisism is steeped in outdated tradition which promotes a sexist stance and holds back women within its own ranks, I questioned TeresaBenedicta with regards to her opinion of the Church's stance, asking whether she felt comfortable supporting and even promoting this stance.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 04, 2011, 08:40:35 PM
I don't agree with the premise-- "that the Catholic church views women as somewhat less than that of a man." 'Women priests' is not an equality issue by any means. The nature (essence) of the priesthood is inherently male. Just as it is impossible for a male to conceive and bring to term a child, so is it impossible for a female to be ordained into the ministerial priesthood.
TeresaBenedicta - I would love it if you would elaborate, now that the shackles of Noobie status have been removed.
Why is it impossible for a female to be ordained into the ministerial priesthood? Is a penis needed for some essential activity of the priesthood, if not then what is the debilitating aspect of a famale with regards to this role?
It's an interesting argument linking the biological difference between men and women to the church's bigotry toward women. I think it could have something to do with the fact that, from a religious point of view, there's no real separation between natural law and 'God's law'. The funny thing is, though, seemingly the only way for a Christian to explain why women can't be pastors is either an appeal to authority (it's god's will, therefore it's okay) or a questionable analogy (women can't preach for the same reason men can't give birth). I'd personally like to see a stronger argument.
Quote from: Will on May 07, 2011, 10:00:36 PM
It's an interesting argument linking the biological difference between men and women to the church's bigotry toward women. I think it could have something to do with the fact that, from a religious point of view, there's no real separation between natural law and 'God's law'.
I am curious about this equivocation. Natural law, while establishing sexual dimorphism and a sexual
difference does not obviously establish a sexual
hierarchy. It takes man to do that. And I do mean "man."
Quote from: Will on May 07, 2011, 10:00:36 PM
The funny thing is, though, seemingly the only way for a Christian to explain why women can't be pastors is either an appeal to authority (it's god's will, therefore it's okay) or a questionable analogy (women can't preach for the same reason men can't give birth). I'd personally like to see a stronger argument.
You have to somehow establish that there is some quality essential (in the philosophic sense) to maleness that inherently makes them suited to the priesthood, and that there is some essential quality to femaleness that prevents this suitability. I have, like you, never seen this convincingly established.
Interesting title for this topic ;)
I certainly don't mind entering into this discussion and I will do my best to explain the Church's stance in a coherent (and hopefully convincing) way. One thing I will mention from the start is that we need to recognize certain premises. What I mean is that we cannot debate from different traditions. I am not debating a humanist about this issue (yet). A humanist understanding of reality is likely different than the Catholic understanding of reality. So I ask that, at first, the discussion concern itself as to whether or not the Church's position is compatible with its own tradition (is there a contradiction between beliefs held within this tradition? etc). If we are able to determine that the tradition itself holds together, without contradiction, on this point, then we can move to discussion as to whether or not the premises of the tradition are flawed. Another way of saying all of this is that when dealing with specific issues that are unique to a tradition, we must first examine the issue from within the tradition and then move to look at it from without.
I hope that makes sense. (If anyone has read MacIntyre's After Virtue, you'll see even more clearly the point I'm trying to make about arguing within traditions.)
Give me a bit and I'll be back to address issue at hand.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 12:20:33 AM
If we are able to determine that the tradition itself holds together, without contradiction, on this point, then we can move to discussion as to whether or not the premises of the tradition are flawed. Another way of saying all of this is that when dealing with specific issues that are unique to a tradition, we must first examine the issue from within the tradition and then move to look at it from without.
I can certainly understand and appreciate your wish to proceed in a logically and philosophically rigorous fashion. Certainly if there are problems with
coherence in the philosophical stance of the Catholic church, it does little good to go beyond those issues in any case, since any argument presented with an incoherent foundation will be moot. However, while I understand what you're driving at in terms of procedure, I would like to take issue with the "face-value" of the following statement, to make a point...
QuoteWhat I mean is that we cannot debate from different traditions.
Nonsense. This is precisely what we
must do. We cannot entirely escape our own perspectives, in any case.
It may be impossible to proceed without first agreeing on certain basic definitions, but these
can, indeed, must be broader definitions acceptable to both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It is ridiculous to presume that we must accept the specifically Catholic definition of reality before debating the Catholic definition of reality, since it is precisely this reality that is, or should be, under scrutiny. As you say, it does little good to argue a philosophic position if that position doesn't hold together in the first place. But eventually two differing perspectives must compete as candidates for an accurate description of reality. How else, other than from an external vantage point, could we come to evaluate the premises of either tradition in question?
If I was to say that one must first accept the equality of men and women (without going into the issue of the term "equality") before debating whether the humanist perspective that men and women deserve equal treatment under the law, you would likely, if you were from a massively patriarchal culture, cry foul play and first argue the validity of the first premises.
Quote from: The Black Jester on May 08, 2011, 01:44:49 AM
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 12:20:33 AM
If we are able to determine that the tradition itself holds together, without contradiction, on this point, then we can move to discussion as to whether or not the premises of the tradition are flawed. Another way of saying all of this is that when dealing with specific issues that are unique to a tradition, we must first examine the issue from within the tradition and then move to look at it from without.
I can certainly understand and appreciate your wish to proceed in a logically and philosophically rigorous fashion. Certainly if there are problems with coherence in the philosophical stance of the Catholic church, it does little good to go beyond those issues in any case, since any argument presented with an incoherent foundation will be moot. However, while I understand what you're driving at in terms of procedure, I would like to take issue with the "face-value" of the following statement, to make a point...
QuoteWhat I mean is that we cannot debate from different traditions.
Nonsense. This is precisely what we must do. We cannot entirely escape our own perspectives, in any case.
It may be impossible to proceed without first agreeing on certain basic definitions, but these can, indeed, must be broader definitions acceptable to both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It is ridiculous to presume that we must accept the specifically Catholic definition of reality before debating the Catholic definition of reality, since it is precisely this reality that is, or should be, under scrutiny. As you say, it does little good to argue a philosophic position if that position doesn't hold together in the first place. But eventually two differing perspectives must compete as candidates for an accurate description of reality. How else, other than from an external vantage point, could we come to evaluate the premises of either tradition in question?
If I was to say that one must first accept the equality of men and women (without going into the issue of the term "equality") before debating whether the humanist perspective that men and women deserve equal treatment under the law, you would likely, if you were from a massively patriarchal culture, cry foul play and first argue the validity of the first premises.
For example,
Catholicism and its sacraments work from metaphysical worldview- with causes and essences and forms and accidents and that whole lot. If, for example, you reject metaphysics (like Comte does and other philosophers), there can be no debating about women priests. That's what I'm saying.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 02:29:50 AM
Quote from: The Black Jester on May 08, 2011, 01:44:49 AM
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 12:20:33 AM
If we are able to determine that the tradition itself holds together, without contradiction, on this point, then we can move to discussion as to whether or not the premises of the tradition are flawed. Another way of saying all of this is that when dealing with specific issues that are unique to a tradition, we must first examine the issue from within the tradition and then move to look at it from without.
I can certainly understand and appreciate your wish to proceed in a logically and philosophically rigorous fashion. Certainly if there are problems with coherence in the philosophical stance of the Catholic church, it does little good to go beyond those issues in any case, since any argument presented with an incoherent foundation will be moot. However, while I understand what you're driving at in terms of procedure, I would like to take issue with the "face-value" of the following statement, to make a point...
QuoteWhat I mean is that we cannot debate from different traditions.
Nonsense. This is precisely what we must do. We cannot entirely escape our own perspectives, in any case.
It may be impossible to proceed without first agreeing on certain basic definitions, but these can, indeed, must be broader definitions acceptable to both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It is ridiculous to presume that we must accept the specifically Catholic definition of reality before debating the Catholic definition of reality, since it is precisely this reality that is, or should be, under scrutiny. As you say, it does little good to argue a philosophic position if that position doesn't hold together in the first place. But eventually two differing perspectives must compete as candidates for an accurate description of reality. How else, other than from an external vantage point, could we come to evaluate the premises of either tradition in question?
If I was to say that one must first accept the equality of men and women (without going into the issue of the term "equality") before debating whether the humanist perspective that men and women deserve equal treatment under the law, you would likely, if you were from a massively patriarchal culture, cry foul play and first argue the validity of the first premises.
For example,
Catholicism and its sacraments work from metaphysical worldview- with causes and essences and forms and accidents and that whole lot. If, for example, you reject metaphysics (like Comte does and other philosophers), there can be no debating about women priests. That's what I'm saying.
I suppose what I'm saying is that, in your example, it seems to me that one would have to
first have the
debate about accepting or refuting metaphisics, and the reasons for doing so, before one proceeded to the argument about women priests. Not simply make bald statements about whether or not metaphysics is valid, and if perspectives differ simply claiming an impasse. If someone came to me denying the validity of metaphysics, I would want to know their reasons before I allowed them to dismiss my entire argument for disallowing women priests. I wouldn't simply claim that the "traditions were incompatible."
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 12:20:33 AM
Interesting title for this topic ;)
I wanted to leave it ambiguous. "Stand by" doesn't mean behind, "by" could be thought of as similar to "beside" which sounds like equality, "your man" would imply the man is the possession with the woman being the owner, so a flip on what is actually to be discussed. However Standing by your man would imply he is making the decisions and you are simply standing by the decisions that he has made. This seems pertinant to my current perception of the Catholic church with the Pope and the priesthood being "The Man". But of course I am struggling with the rules that take "The Man" literally and ensure that "The Man" remains a man only club.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 12:20:33 AM
So I ask that, at first, the discussion concern itself as to whether or not the Church's position is compatible with its own tradition
I am not one to follow tradition for tradition's sake, I feel the world has moved on for the better, however your approach sounds interesting and I think I will learn a lot by going along with it.
Quote from: The Black Jester on May 08, 2011, 02:52:48 AM
I suppose what I'm saying is that, in your example, it seems to me that one would have to first have the debate about accepting or refuting metaphisics
The way I look at it is that TeresaBenedicta is going to present a case from both perspectives, Catholic tradition and Humanist. She has asked us to hold fire on the Humanist counter arguments for the time being presumably so that she can get through an understanding with regards to the Catholic traditions.
It seems that all will be covered.
An important note as I begin... Sacraments are a matter of faith. While we can speak about them using logic, it will, at some point in time, require an act of faith to completely understand their nature. And even those of us within the faith will never completely comprehend them until heaven. Another word for each of the seven sacraments is "μυστήριον". Our English equivalent of "mystery" doesn't quite capture what is meant in the Greek. In Biblical language it used to mean "that which, being outside the unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known only by divine revelation." I say all of this before beginning so that we aren't surprised if/when we don't come to an agreement at the end of this discussion. This is why I ask you to first view my arguments from the tradition in which this topic belongs. We can discuss at a later point in time some of the underlying premises of the tradition itself.
I will provide you with several different arguments of varying strengths.
First, the Church simply does not have the authority to ordain women. If it were simply a matter of talent or ability, then women would be fair game for the priesthood. In fact, women would make great priests! However, even if the Church wanted to ordain women, she couldn't do it. Her authority comes from Christ Himself. And Jesus did not ordain women. The Scripture is silent on female ordination. Jesus ordained the twelve (Mt. 26:26-29), who consequently chose and ordained only men (Acts 1:26).
So the Scriptures are silent; they do not support the ordination of females. However, the Church does not abide by sola scriptura, but rather holds that Scripture & Tradition make up the deposit of the faith. And Tradition also supports the restriction ordination to males only. From the earliest centuries, the Church Fathers recognized that Jesus' intention was for a male-only priesthood. The Gnostics in the 2nd & 3rd century who attempted to ordain women were formally declared heretics by the Church.
Here the objection is usually raised that Jesus was restricted by cultural beliefs, that if He were alive today where women hold a more equal footing with men, then He would most certainly ordain women. I don't buy it. First, Jesus wasn't afraid to break cultural norms in His dealings with women. He dealt compassionately with both the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:4) and the prostitute, Mary Magdalene (Luke 7:36), both of whom society had ostracized. Even His adversaries stated, "Teacher, we know you are a truthful man and teach God's way sincerely. You court no one's favor and do not act of human respect." (Mt 22:16) Second, if Jesus had wished to ordain women, He had a perfect choice in His own mother, Mary. Yet even she was not chosen for this. Nor were any of His other female followers (who, by the way, were the first to see the Risen Lord). Not to mention that culturally, pagan priestesses were a common occurrence. The cultural argument is weak at best.
Also falling under the authority of the Church is the fact that this teaching is taught from the deposit of faith. That means that, regardless for the reasoning behind the teaching, it is binding on all Catholics. The deposit of faith contains the unchangeable teachings handed on by Christ and the Apostles that the Church does not have the authority to change. From Bl. John Paul II, "Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).
Unsatisfying? Probably. For the non-Catholic, definitely. But for the Catholic, it ultimately comes down to this... if the teaching authority is wrong on this matter, then the entire Church crumbles. As Catholics, we believe that the Church is protected from error by the power of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 16:18) in matters of faith and morals. If she is wrong on this matter, then her teaching authority is not protected by the Holy Spirit, and we have no reason to believe her in any matter whatsoever. So if a Catholic believes the Catholic Church to be the true Church of Christ, protected by the Holy Spirit (as professed in the Creed), then they must submit to the Church's teaching on this matter.
Again, unsatisfying for non-Catholics. And while it's enough to settle the matter for Catholics, we should still study the matter further. To understand the why.
Second, it is inherent to the priesthood that priests are male.
What is the priesthood? Is it simply leading a congregation? Teaching about the faith? Hardly. No, in its essence, the priesthood is a participation in the double role of Jesus Christ as high-priest and victim. The Christian priest acts 'in persona Christi', in Christ's stead, and offers the bread and the wine, which Jesus Himself made His body and blood. In a mysterious way, it is Christ Himself who works through the priest, making present both the sacrifice on the cross and His body and blood. In this sense, an intrinsic part of the sacramental sign of holy orders is the manhood of Christ.
A sacrament, in its most basic definition, is a sign that effects what it signifies. (Water cleanses and baptism really cleanses the soul.) In order for a sacrament to be valid, there must be proper 'form' and 'matter'. The matter is the physical sign... water, bread and wine, etc. The form is the words used... "I baptized you in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit", "This is My body... this is My blood," etc. If the proper matter or form are missing, the sacrament does not take place. For example, grape juice cannot be consecrated as the blood of Christ.
Manhood is inherent to the 'matter' of the sacrament of holy orders precisely because it is inherent to the priesthood (as participation in the double role of Jesus Christ as high-priest and victim).
There is also the case of spiritual fatherhood. But I think this is the weakest of the arguments and I won't go into it here.
I'll end here for now.
At worst, the Church has no evidence that says she can ordain women... therefore it is safer, for the sake of valid sacraments, to restrict the priesthood to males. At best, the Church recognizes that only a male can be an 'alter Christi'.
Quote from: Stevil on May 07, 2011, 08:09:50 PM
As part of getting to know TeresaBenedicta it was revealed that she is a Catholic with aspirations towards the ranks of the church.
Just to clarify... my aspirations are toward religious life, not the priesthood or participation in the hierarchy of the Church. ;)
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 05:11:41 AM
An important note as I begin... Sacraments are a matter of faith. While we can speak about them using logic, it will, at some point in time, require an act of faith to completely understand their nature. And even those of us within the faith will never completely comprehend them until heaven. Another word for each of the seven sacraments is "μυστήριον". Our English equivalent of "mystery" doesn't quite capture what is meant in the Greek. In Biblical language it used to mean "that which, being outside the unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known only by divine revelation." I say all of this before beginning so that we aren't surprised if/when we don't come to an agreement at the end of this discussion. This is why I ask you to first view my arguments from the tradition in which this topic belongs. We can discuss at a later point in time some of the underlying premises of the tradition itself.
I will provide you with several different arguments of varying strengths.
First, the Church simply does not have the authority to ordain women. If it were simply a matter of talent or ability, then women would be fair game for the priesthood. In fact, women would make great priests! However, even if the Church wanted to ordain women, she couldn't do it. Her authority comes from Christ Himself. And Jesus did not ordain women. The Scripture is silent on female ordination. Jesus ordained the twelve (Mt. 26:26-29), who consequently chose and ordained only men (Acts 1:26).
Jesus didn't formally ordain anyone in the Bible. The scripture is pretty silent on prdination in general. It's also silent on an explicit acknowledgement of the sacraments in general (as sacraments, I'm not cliaming that the Bible doesn't mention Baptism but it doesn not mention certain actions or religious practices as uniquely sacramental, that I remember.
More importantly you set selection is arbitrary. The Church does not ordain women because Jesus did not ordain women. Very well. Jesus also did not ordain any Romans. Why were Romans allowed in the Priesthood?
QuoteSecond, it is inherent to the priesthood that priests are male.
What is the priesthood? Is it simply leading a congregation? Teaching about the faith? Hardly. No, in its essence, the priesthood is a participation in the double role of Jesus Christ as high-priest and victim. The Christian priest acts 'in persona Christi', in Christ's stead, and offers the bread and the wine, which Jesus Himself made His body and blood. In a mysterious way, it is Christ Himself who works through the priest, making present both the sacrifice on the cross and His body and blood. In this sense, an intrinsic part of the sacramental sign of holy orders is the manhood of Christ.
St. Paul claims that man and woman are one in Christ Jesus. Which aspects of Christs personhood are important and which are arbitrary? Christ was a Palestinian Jew. Should only Palestinian jews be allowed to act in persona Christi?
QuoteAt worst, the Church has no evidence that says she can ordain women... therefore it is safer, for the sake of valid sacraments, to restrict the priesthood to males. At best, the Church recognizes that only a male can be an 'alter Christi'.
Why males? Why not restrict it to males that share all the qualities of the Apostles? Why not restrict the Priesthood to ethnic Jews and Greeks, just to be safe?
Quote from: Will37 on May 08, 2011, 05:22:10 AM
Jesus didn't formally ordain anyone in the Bible. The scripture is pretty silent on prdination in general. It's also silent on an explicit acknowledgement of the sacraments in general (as sacraments, I'm not cliaming that the Bible doesn't mention Baptism but it doesn not mention certain actions or religious practices as uniquely sacramental, that I remember.
More importantly you set selection is arbitrary. The Church does not ordain women because Jesus did not ordain women. Very well. Jesus also did not ordain any Romans. Why were Romans allowed in the Priesthood?
Scripture & Tradition. Jesus instituted the sacraments. Tradition works out what Scripture indicates. "Do this in memory of me" and "He breathed on them the Holy Spirit". Everything is not spelled out perfectly in Scripture. This is why the Church includes both Scripture and Tradition in the deposit of the faith.
My selection is not arbitrary- I am responding to the question about male vs female ordination. Not Roman vs. Jew. Tradition takes care of that question, if you want to look into it.
QuoteSt. Paul claims that man and woman are one in Christ Jesus. Which aspects of Christs personhood are important and which are arbitrary? Christ was a Palestinian Jew. Should only Palestinian jews be allowed to act in persona Christi?
Your reference to St. Paul must be read in context of the entire passage. You are referring to Galatians 3:8 and Paul is there teaching about justification through faith NOT our roles in the Church. Check out 1 Cor 5-29 if you want his teaching on roles in the Church.
QuoteWhy males? Why not restrict it to males that share all the qualities of the Apostles? Why not restrict the Priesthood to ethnic Jews and Greeks, just to be safe?
Because the Apostles did not do so. And Tradition does not teach it. Besides, ethnic identity is accidental to a person's essence. Gender is not.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 05:34:46 AM
Scripture & Tradition. Jesus instituted the sacraments. Tradition works out what Scripture indicates. "Do this in memory of me" and "He breathed on them the Holy Spirit". Everything is not spelled out perfectly in Scripture. This is why the Church includes both Scripture and Tradition in the deposit of the faith.
Right. But here you are refering to the Bible as your set of evidence. You say that one piece of evidence is that the Bible does not show Jesus ordaining women. My point is that the Bible doesn't show Jesus ordaining anyone. If you want to argue Tradition then argue Tradition. Scripture doesn't give any strong indication of who should and should not be included in the Sacramental Priesthood because there is no Sacramental Priesthood in the Bible.
QuoteMy selection is not arbitrary- I am responding to the question about male vs female ordination. Not Roman vs. Jew. Tradition takes care of that question, if you want to look into it.
But by the logic that you used they should be. So you can point to an exception to this logic that Tradition makes but I bet that Ican always come up with something not mentioned in Tradition that by the logic you presented should exclude set x from the Priesthood.
QuoteYour reference to St. Paul must be read in context of the entire passage. You are referring to Galatians 3:8 and Paul is there teaching about justification through faith NOT our roles in the Church.
3:28. I assume that's a typo but just mentioning that for other's benefit. The passage does not offer such restrictions.
Check out 1 Cor 5-29 if you want his teaching on roles in the Church.
Right, because through faith all are one in Christ. "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clother yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free person, there is not male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendant, heirs according to the promise."
What in 1 Cor are you refering too? The only thing I can think of is 1 Timothy 2: 8-15. Which does make clear that women have a particular place in society, and that is to remain home and have children. That does help your argument in proving that the Church is being faithful to it's founding texts in banning women from the Priesthood but it hurts your larger argument that this ban does not indicate a deeper misogyny in Christianity
1 Timothy 2:
QuoteBecause the Apostles did not do so. And Tradition does not teach it. Besides, ethnic identity is accidental to a person's essence. Gender is not.
Why is biological sex any less accidental in this respect than ethnicity?
Quote from: Will37 on May 08, 2011, 05:54:01 AM
Right. But here you are refering to the Bible as your set of evidence. You say that one piece of evidence is that the Bible does not show Jesus ordaining women. My point is that the Bible doesn't show Jesus ordaining anyone. If you want to argue Tradition then argue Tradition. Scripture doesn't give any strong indication of who should and should not be included in the Sacramental Priesthood because there is no Sacramental Priesthood in the Bible.
Do you want to argue a sacramental priesthood itself? That's a different question than allowing females into the sacramental priesthood (which is what we're discussing). I didn't go into this because it was assumed within the question we're discussing.
Like I said, Scripture does not spell out the sacraments in full. Tradition develops the sacraments instituted by Christ. I don't like to dump quotes, but here are a few from the 2nd and 3rd century the indicate a sacramental priesthood.
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians 6:1 [A.D. 110]
"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit" (ibid., 13:1–2).
More can be found http://www.catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp).
Quote
QuoteMy selection is not arbitrary- I am responding to the question about male vs female ordination. Not Roman vs. Jew. Tradition takes care of that question, if you want to look into it.
But by the logic that you used they should be.
No. Like I said, I'm responding to the question of male vs female ordination. Scripture is only one part of the answer that I provided. The Apostles and early Church Fathers had no problem ordaining men of varying ethnic identities. They
did have a problem with ordaining women. Scripture and Tradition.
Quote
QuoteYour reference to St. Paul must be read in context of the entire passage. You are referring to Galatians 3:8 and Paul is there teaching about justification through faith NOT our roles in the Church.
3:28. I assume that's a typo but just mentioning that for other's benefit. The passage does not offer such restrictions.
Check out 1 Cor 5-29 if you want his teaching on roles in the Church.
Right, because through faith all are one in Christ. "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clother yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free person, there is not male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendant, heirs according to the promise."
What in 1 Cor are you refering too? The only thing I can think of is Timothy. Which does make clear that women have a particular place in society, and that is to remain home and have children. That does help your argument in proving that the Church is being faithful to it's founding texts in banning women from the Priesthood but it hurts your larger argument that this ban does not indicate a deeper misogyny in Christianity
No, I meant 3:8. It gives the context of the passage you are citing. Paul is talking to the Galatians about how God willed the Gentiles to be saved along with the Jews. And this justification is made through faith, regardless of being a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, male or female. Paul is talking about
justification NOT roles within the Church.
Sorry-- I missed the chapter reference. 1 Cor 12:5-29. Paul is talking about how some are prophets and some are healers. One body but different parts.
Quote
QuoteBecause the Apostles did not do so. And Tradition does not teach it. Besides, ethnic identity is accidental to a person's essence. Gender is not.
Why is biological sex any less accidental in this respect than ethnicity?
Being male or female is inherent to who one
is, essentially. Ethnicity is not. A soul is male or female. But it is not a particular ethnicity.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 05:11:41 AM
However, even if the Church wanted to ordain women, she couldn't do it. Her authority comes from Christ Himself. And Jesus did not ordain women. The Scripture is silent on female ordination. Jesus ordained the twelve (Mt. 26:26-29), who consequently chose and ordained only men (Acts 1:26).
So the Scriptures are silent; they do not support the ordination of females.
The bias against female ordination has such a high impact on half the population and is counter intuitive with regards to treating all people with love and respect (equality). To base such a strong stance on lack of evidence is quite something. I see that religion is in a bit of a bind, if something is not 100% clear in the scriptures one cannot simply ask god to clarify, instead one must revert to other methods to glean "clarity". I feel since assumptions are being made on this ambiguous matter it could be possible (IMHO) for the church to alter its opinion here.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 05:11:41 AM
And Tradition also supports the restriction ordination to males only. From the earliest centuries, the Church Fathers recognized that Jesus' intention was for a male-only priesthood. The Gnostics in the 2nd & 3rd century who attempted to ordain women were formally declared heretics by the Church.
If at some point the current pope changes this stance then later down the line his decision will be seen as historical and hence a more encompassing tradition could be formed.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 05:11:41 AM
Also falling under the authority of the Church is the fact that this teaching is taught from the deposit of faith. That means that, regardless for the reasoning behind the teaching, it is binding on all Catholics. The deposit of faith contains the unchangeable teachings handed on by Christ and the Apostles that the Church does not have the authority to change.
... I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).
This bit probably highlights the biggest difference between Atheists and Theists. Atheists very rarely accept a thought pattern or position simply because they are told that that is a non negotiable way to think. Atheists always want a valid reason and will often challenge ideas that they do not understand or buy into.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 05:11:41 AM
Second, it is inherent to the priesthood that priests are male.
Manhood is inherent to the 'matter' of the sacrament of holy orders precisely because it is inherent to the priesthood (as participation in the double role of Jesus Christ as high-priest and victim).
So I take it that the Catholic Church deems god and Jesus to definitely be male and that only a human male can represent Jesus because they assume that a male must be represented by a male.
I understand that Jesus was a male human when he walked the earth but was not aware that souls in the afterlife also are distinguished by male and female.
By my understanding animals have sex organs in order to reproduce, for what purpose are gender attributes in the afterlife?
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 05:11:41 AM
At worst, the Church has no evidence that says she can ordain women... therefore it is safer, for the sake of valid sacraments, to restrict the priesthood to males. At best, the Church recognizes that only a male can be an 'alter Christi'.
From what you have told me and my very limited knowledge of Catholicism, I don't feel it would be such a big deal for this tradition to change. Of course there would be big gasps at first but the Church would survive.
In actual fact, if I were a country policy maker I would make it illegal for an organization to hold such a gender bias. The Church would either have to change or stop operations in my country. Under these circumstances I am sure the Church would change.
But in reality the Catholics are such a large voting force I would either not be voted into leadership or would be overthrown, Oh well.
Quote from: Stevil on May 08, 2011, 09:29:47 AM
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 05:11:41 AM
However, even if the Church wanted to ordain women, she couldn't do it. Her authority comes from Christ Himself. And Jesus did not ordain women. The Scripture is silent on female ordination. Jesus ordained the twelve (Mt. 26:26-29), who consequently chose and ordained only men (Acts 1:26).
So the Scriptures are silent; they do not support the ordination of females.
The bias against female ordination has such a high impact on half the population and is counter intuitive with regards to treating all people with love and respect (equality). To base such a strong stance on lack of evidence is quite something. I see that religion is in a bit of a bind, if something is not 100% clear in the scriptures one cannot simply ask god to clarify, instead one must revert to other methods to glean "clarity". I feel since assumptions are being made on this ambiguous matter it could be possible (IMHO) for the church to alter its opinion here.
I don't think assumptions are being made here. Scripture itself maintains that it does not contain the wholeness of what Jesus taught and did. This is why the Church has Tradition. Together, the two, make up the deposit of faith. And Tradition makes clear what Scripture is silent about (and it's not even completely silent on this case). By the second century, folks were asking this very question... can women be ordained? And the answer was clearly no. The Apostles, who spent time with the Risen Lord and were guided by the Holy Spirit, did not see it within Jesus' will to ordain women. Those who were attempted to ordain women during the second and third centuries were Gnostics and declared heretics.
Quote
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 05:11:41 AM
And Tradition also supports the restriction ordination to males only. From the earliest centuries, the Church Fathers recognized that Jesus' intention was for a male-only priesthood. The Gnostics in the 2nd & 3rd century who attempted to ordain women were formally declared heretics by the Church.
If at some point the current pope changes this stance then later down the line his decision will be seen as historical and hence a more encompassing tradition could be formed.
Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way. Part of Tradition is that it has its root in Scripture and the early Church. In order for the Church to teach something authoritatively, it must be rooted in both.
Quote
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 05:11:41 AM
Also falling under the authority of the Church is the fact that this teaching is taught from the deposit of faith. That means that, regardless for the reasoning behind the teaching, it is binding on all Catholics. The deposit of faith contains the unchangeable teachings handed on by Christ and the Apostles that the Church does not have the authority to change.
... I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).
This bit probably highlights the biggest difference between Atheists and Theists. Atheists very rarely accept a thought pattern or position simply because they are told that that is a non negotiable way to think. Atheists always want a valid reason and will often challenge ideas that they do not understand or buy into.
Well, it's not
quite that simple. We accept not because 'the Church says so', and more because we have concluded that the Church is infallible when teachings matters of faith and morals. And trust me, that latter point, certainly requires a valid reason. It's an extremely important point, too. It's what keeps me Catholic. Otherwise I'd simply be a theist or a deist. If the Church had no teaching authority (that is protected by the Holy Spirit), there would be no way to grasp the truths of Christianity. Simply no way. Because human error would completely distort the Gospel. There would be no one truth that a person could grasp. They would be left to, 2,000 some years later, try to figure out a glimpse of what Jesus did and taught.
God knew this. He knew that the Church would be lost without His guidance. Which is why He chose to lead it and guide it in a very real and powerful way.
Quote
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 05:11:41 AM
Second, it is inherent to the priesthood that priests are male.
Manhood is inherent to the 'matter' of the sacrament of holy orders precisely because it is inherent to the priesthood (as participation in the double role of Jesus Christ as high-priest and victim).
So I take it that the Catholic Church deems god and Jesus to definitely be male and that only a human male can represent Jesus because they assume that a male must be represented by a male.
I understand that Jesus was a male human when he walked the earth but was not aware that souls in the afterlife also are distinguished by male and female.
By my understanding animals have sex organs in order to reproduce, for what purpose are gender attributes in the afterlife?
Our sexuality goes deeper than just our bodies. Being male and being female means more than simply having reproductive organs. It encompasses the whole of who we are. Body
and soul. When I have a bit more time later this afternoon, I'll explain a little more about this.
Also remember that Catholics believe in the resurrection of the body. In Heaven we will be reunited with our bodies. We will not simply be souls wandering around. We will be fully ourselves. To cease to have our body would be to exist as less than human. A human being is body and soul composite. Without one or the other, we are not fully human.
Jesus is unequivocally male. This fact is unchangeable. God chose to incarnate Himself among us as a human male.
Quote
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 05:11:41 AM
At worst, the Church has no evidence that says she can ordain women... therefore it is safer, for the sake of valid sacraments, to restrict the priesthood to males. At best, the Church recognizes that only a male can be an 'alter Christi'.
From what you have told me and my very limited knowledge of Catholicism, I don't feel it would be such a big deal for this tradition to change. Of course there would be big gasps at first but the Church would survive.
In actual fact, if I were a country policy maker I would make it illegal for an organization to hold such a gender bias. The Church would either have to change or stop operations in my country. Under these circumstances I am sure the Church would change.
But in reality the Catholics are such a large voting force I would either not be voted into leadership or would be overthrown, Oh well.
I'm afraid it would be an enormous problem if the Church 'changed' on this. Remember, her entire authority rests on her infallibility in regards to teaching in matters of faith and morals. She has taught this teaching infallibly. If somehow in the future she revoked this teaching, it would be a clear break in Tradition. It would be proven that she is not protected and guided by the Holy Spirit and without this, the Church is nothing.
I sincerely hope you would not go that route. Unless of course, you are against the freedom of religion and freedom to practice your religion. No woman (or man) for that matter
has to be Catholic. They willingly choose their religion, including all that it teaches. I would be aghast that the government would meddle in such internal affairs. Trust me, the Church won't last long into the future if this is not a Divine truth. Women will leave of their own accord and there won't be anyone left in the Church. She'll die out. I don't think it'll happen, though.
And you'd be surprised at how firmly the Church will hold onto this, even if there were government pressures. She would rather go underground than contradict a matter of faith.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 04:37:29 PM
I sincerely hope you would not go that route. Unless of course, you are against the freedom of religion and freedom to practice your religion.
I am against discrimination, pure and simple, that even includes discrimination of people based on religion.
I find discrimination based on gender abhorrent and I feel in our society it must not be tolerated. I feel very strongly about this matter. Only time will tell if governments have the courage to take action on such a stance. So far, they have not.
In this way I assume the Catholic church would see me and my ideals of equality as a threat (hence evil, I guess) so I'm guessing that my desire for equality makes me a bad person in the eyes of the Church. This is all purely hypothetical by the way, I have no desire to rule a country.
Quote from: Stevil on May 08, 2011, 07:56:03 PM
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 04:37:29 PM
I sincerely hope you would not go that route. Unless of course, you are against the freedom of religion and freedom to practice your religion.
I am against discrimination, pure and simple, that even includes discrimination of people based on religion.
I find discrimination based on gender abhorrent and I feel in our society it must not be tolerated. I feel very strongly about this matter. Only time will tell if governments have the courage to take action on such a stance. So far, they have not.
In this way I assume the Catholic church would see me and my ideals of equality as a threat (hence evil, I guess) so I'm guessing that my desire for equality makes me a bad person in the eyes of the Church. This is all purely hypothetical by the way, I have no desire to rule a country.
That's somewhat totalitarian. You feel it's the government's place to tell a voluntary collective of individuals how to order their meetings?
Quote from: Will37 on May 08, 2011, 08:24:23 PM
That's somewhat totalitarian. You feel it's the government's place to tell a voluntary collective of individuals how to order their meetings?
Yes, if it infringes on basic human rights. It is currently in place in most areas of society, just not religion.
Quote from: Stevil on May 08, 2011, 08:56:58 PM
Quote from: Will37 on May 08, 2011, 08:24:23 PM
That's somewhat totalitarian. You feel it's the government's place to tell a voluntary collective of individuals how to order their meetings?
Yes, if it infringes on basic human rights. It is currently in place in most areas of society, just not religion.
But no one has a "right" to the priesthood.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 09:10:19 PM
But no one has a "right" to the priesthood.
It's a basic human rights infringement, equal opportunity, equal rights.
But anyway, I'm jumping the gun here. Let's finish with tradition before we move onto this aspect.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 04:37:29 PM
Trust me, the Church won't last long into the future if this is not a Divine truth. Women will leave of their own accord and there won't be anyone left in the Church.
People are often illogical
Women in some Muslim countries wrap themselves up in black sheets, hide themselves from the world only to unravel for the pleasure of their man. Most of these women would adamantly defend and praise the Islam religion and Arab culture.
Some women remain with their abusive boyfriends/husbands despite the bruises and broken bones.
Many people inject themselves with drugs despite knowing that it leads to addiction and misery.
People staying in a situation does not mean that they approve of it or think it is divine. Even if they do think it is divine that does not necessarily mean that it is divine.
It's very interesting this aspect of tradition that you have explained. Thanks very much for taking the time to explain it. I knew tradition was big with the church but didn't understand how important it actually was to them.
With the bible being IP that is open slather to anyone, any church to take on board, to interpret (as is required to understand it) and even to rewrite (in the circumstance of Islam). It seems to me now, that the Catholic Church's key differentiator is their claim to their tradition having been built up via the church receiving divine guidance, which is unique and has been guarded and adhered to for many aeons.
I feel if the church is divinely guided then the leaders can implement change. They have done this through the years although in a very conservative manor. E.g. recent example being that male prostitutes are now morally allowed to use condoms.
Since god works through the male priesthood then this change comes from god and is not to be questioned. God is infallible and since the church is divinely guided then so is the church.
Otherwise, I feel the church is in quite a bind. In today's environment the majority of people not heavily influenced by religion have progressed with regards to their views on equality and social norms. Given the secular nature of common law, so too has the rules of society moved on. Given that religious people also belong to the country's society and being governed by the laws of the land and being exposed by media (tv, movies, books, radio) which have largely also adapted to society's progress towards equality and acceptance. Being part of this society it seems natural that even religious people are seeing an alternative way to think and hence start questioning the rules and stance of the church.
The church must be seeing this happen more and more frequent these days. I am sure it must be having an impact on affiliation. I see three ways that the church could go.
1. Isolation, they could attempt to get their followers to live in isolated communities, ban popular media and hence maintain control and avoid outside influences. There are many religions that go down this path.
2. Adapt, they could change with the times, being divinely inspired to change. This way they may risk followers getting confused as to the legitimacy of the church with their past convictions to adhere to controversial stances.
3. Status Quo. Risk losing followers over time as followers as society proves to be more moral, accepting, loving than the church.
I feel that the church is somewhere between 2 and 3. But much more closer to 3 than 2. In future I think the church will be forced to move closer and closer to 2 with the rate that they move towards 2 accelerating.
But anyway, that is my outsider's thoughts. Really, I don't have a clue.
BTW – If I make three posts in a row in the same thread, does that mean I am talking to myself?
There is specific scripture about the role of women in the church, and the role of women with respect to man.
Role of women in church
1 Corinthians 14, verses 34 & 35:
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Role of women with respect to men
1 Timothy 2, verses 11-14:
11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
As you can see, there is nothing vague about why women can not be ordained according to the denominations that choose to follow the letters of Paul. Those denominations that do allow women ministers choose to view these letters as rules laid out by Paul for the EARLY church, and not necessarily meant for today's society, since women's place in society has changed since then. As long as there is a demand, there will be a new or changing denomination to meet that demand.
There are also verses about women keeping their heads covered, dressing modestly, being the source of sin, and even saying a woman is unclean for a longer period of time if she gives birth to a girl instead of a boy. If you actually practice by the sexism in the Bible listed on this site http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Bbl/Sexism/Sexism.html (http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Bbl/Sexism/Sexism.html) it seems to me you would keep women in the back of the church, covered head to toe, and would prosecute them when they are raped. Sounds a bit like Saudi Arabia.
Quote from: Stevil on May 09, 2011, 07:57:24 AM
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 08, 2011, 04:37:29 PM
Trust me, the Church won't last long into the future if this is not a Divine truth. Women will leave of their own accord and there won't be anyone left in the Church.
People are often illogical
Women in some Muslim countries wrap themselves up in black sheets, hide themselves from the world only to unravel for the pleasure of their man. Most of these women would adamantly defend and praise the Islam religion and Arab culture.
Some women remain with their abusive boyfriends/husbands despite the bruises and broken bones.
Many people inject themselves with drugs despite knowing that it leads to addiction and misery.
People staying in a situation does not mean that they approve of it or think it is divine. Even if they do think it is divine that does not necessarily mean that it is divine.
I don't think its fair to compare the first with the second two. The first, if freely chosen, is not inherently bad. The second two, regardless if chosen, is inherently bad.
There are Muslim women here in America that choose freely to cover themselves. Is that wrong?
Quote from: Stevil on May 10, 2011, 02:33:17 AM
I feel if the church is divinely guided then the leaders can implement change. They have done this through the years although in a very conservative manor. E.g. recent example being that male prostitutes are now morally allowed to use condoms.
Since god works through the male priesthood then this change comes from god and is not to be questioned. God is infallible and since the church is divinely guided then so is the church.
Two things here- first, it is
not true that male prostitutes are now morally allowed to use condoms. The Pope's statement said that the use of condoms in that situation indicates the beginning of an understanding of morality. At the same time he said that the use of condoms is always inherently immoral. The 'beginning of an understanding of morality' does not equate to 'morally acceptable.' It simply means that using a condom as a prostitute shows more moral awareness (care enough about the other person to desire that they not contract disease) than a prostitute not using a condom (no respect for the other person whatsoever). There is still a severe lacking in moral awareness in the first. But it's better than the latter. It's like saying a pop-up is better than a strike out. Both are outs. But one shows a better hand-eye coordination than the other.
Second, a bit of a clarification. Yes, the Church is divinely guided... but, coupled with that teaching, is the teaching that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the apostles. That means that the fullness of truth that the Church teaches is contained in the deposit of faith as found in Sacred Scripture and the Traditions of the Apostles. She cannot teach outside of the two. She can apply moral principles from that truth to new situations, but she never can teach a "new" truth.
This is contrasted, for example, with the Mormons (LDS), who believe in continuing revelation after the death of the last Apostles. This is how they were able to explain the change in teaching from pro-polygamy to anti-polygamy. It was divinely revealed that polygamy should take place for a certain amount of time and then divinely revealed that it should stop.
The Church doesn't work that way. Everything that was to be revealed WAS revealed in Jesus Christ. The Church teaches nothing 'new'. So it would be impossible for her to change her teaching in this matter.
QuoteOtherwise, I feel the church is in quite a bind. In today's environment the majority of people not heavily influenced by religion have progressed with regards to their views on equality and social norms. Given the secular nature of common law, so too has the rules of society moved on. Given that religious people also belong to the country's society and being governed by the laws of the land and being exposed by media (tv, movies, books, radio) which have largely also adapted to society's progress towards equality and acceptance. Being part of this society it seems natural that even religious people are seeing an alternative way to think and hence start questioning the rules and stance of the church.
The church must be seeing this happen more and more frequent these days. I am sure it must be having an impact on affiliation. I see three ways that the church could go.
1. Isolation, they could attempt to get their followers to live in isolated communities, ban popular media and hence maintain control and avoid outside influences. There are many religions that go down this path.
2. Adapt, they could change with the times, being divinely inspired to change. This way they may risk followers getting confused as to the legitimacy of the church with their past convictions to adhere to controversial stances.
3. Status Quo. Risk losing followers over time as followers as society proves to be more moral, accepting, loving than the church.
I feel that the church is somewhere between 2 and 3. But much more closer to 3 than 2. In future I think the church will be forced to move closer and closer to 2 with the rate that they move towards 2 accelerating.
But anyway, that is my outsider's thoughts. Really, I don't have a clue.
Truth attracts people. It's not terribly difficult to see that the issue of women in the priesthood is not an equality issue. I grew up in the same culture that you describe, with the same influences. I am strongly pro-women's equality. But I also recognize that equality does not mean sameness. I know someone earlier disliked this analogy, but it really does indicate the truth of the matter... Just as a man cannot physically bear a child, so too is it impossible (metaphysically speaking) for a woman to be ordained as a priest. It is impossible to consecrate pizza as the body of Christ... it is impossible to baptize with beer... it is impossible to ordain a female. The underlying 'matter' is imperative for the sacrament to take place. Men and women are not only different in regards to physical features, but are also 'male' or 'female' in soul.
The Church will continue to do what she has always done- proclaim the Truth. There will be those who respond and those who don't. I think we all see the growing tension between society and the Church. Well, it won't be the first time that the Church goes underground/isn't accepted by the society at large. Parts of the Church already suffers this (China, for example). The Church doesn't aim to please society. She aims to bring people to Jesus Christ and the truth He proclaimed. In its fulness.
Your third option intrigues me. You say that we risk losing followers to a society that is more "moral, accepting, and loving" than the Church. The Church loves people by teaching how to live lives that will bring them true happiness. The Church accepts all people and then challenges them to grow. Love is
not simply letting people do whatever they want because they feel like it in the name of acceptance and respect. True love wants what is best for the person and is willing to help them no matter the personal cost, while respecting human free choice.
And where is the love and acceptance for the Church and its members on behalf of society? Are we outcasts because we believe a certain way? Are we unworthy of love and acceptance unless we change our beliefs to society's beliefs? Is our acceptance conditional? Dependent on our beliefs conforming with society's?
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 10, 2011, 11:16:35 PM
I don't think its fair to compare the first with the second two. The first, if freely chosen, is not inherently bad. The second two, regardless if chosen, is inherently bad.
There are Muslim women here in America that choose freely to cover themselves. Is that wrong?
You certainly have a different definition of free will than I do. Some of these countries have laws. If a woman exposes her hair, face, ankles, even if her shape can be determined under her attire she runs the risk of being disciplined. There is also a social stigma even within non Muslim countries, Minority groups often put a lot of pressure on themselves, its almost as if they were living in a Muslim country. These women aren't allowed to drive cars, they aren't allowed to rent a hotel room, they aren't even allowed to travel without a letter of approval from their man. Yes, it is happy times for the Muslim woman.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 10, 2011, 11:52:34 PM
first, it is not true that male prostitutes are now morally allowed to use condoms. The Pope's statement said that the use of condoms in that situation indicates the beginning of an understanding of morality.
So you admit to change then, after all these years of tradition, there has been change, no matter how miniscule.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 10, 2011, 11:52:34 PM
Divine Revelation ended with the death of the apostles. That means that the fullness of truth that the Church teaches is contained in the deposit of faith as found in Sacred Scripture and the Traditions of the Apostles.
So in holding to tradition the church is essentially playing a centuries long game of Chinese Whispers. We played it at school as children, within a matter of minutes the original message had changed drastically.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 10, 2011, 11:52:34 PM
So it would be impossible for her to change her teaching in this matter.
Nothing is impossible for an all powerful god and hence a church guided by the almighty. We have seen change, no matter how miniscule.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 10, 2011, 11:52:34 PM
Truth attracts people.
Yes, hence the vast majority of religious people talk about their respective religions and beliefs being the truth.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 10, 2011, 11:52:34 PM
It's not terribly difficult to see that the issue of women in the priesthood is not an equality issue.
Maybe the problem is me, maybe I am lacking the brain cells required to see this. I hear what you are saying with regards to tradition and I know that a claim of divinity can persuade many a people. It seems that even the Catholics do not know why god doesn't want women in the priest hood. They simply accept this as god's will.
The only reasoning you have offered behind god's implied stance is with regards to persona Christi. By my reasoning an all powerful god could persona Christi via a woman.
.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 10, 2011, 11:52:34 PM
And where is the love and acceptance for the Church and its members on behalf of society?
I have heard this before, and you probably already know the well used Atheist response.
The right to discriminate is not a right, it takes away human rights.
All of the apostles celebrated the sabbath on Saturday. The Catholic church began celebrating the sabbath on Sunday many years after the death of the last apostle. Is that a faithful adherence to what is written in the Bible or the traditions of the apostles?
Quote from: Recusant on May 11, 2011, 08:28:53 AM
All of the apostles celebrated the sabbath on Saturday. The Catholic church began celebrating the sabbath on Sunday many years after the death of the last apostle. Is that a faithful adherence to what is written in the Bible or the traditions of the apostles?
Speaking of the Sabbath, are priests going to hell for working on Sunday?
Quote from: Recusant on May 11, 2011, 08:28:53 AM
All of the apostles celebrated the sabbath on Saturday. The Catholic church began celebrating the sabbath on Sunday many years after the death of the last apostle. Is that a faithful adherence to what is written in the Bible or the traditions of the apostles?
As an Adventist myself, this comes up a lot and one of the most informative pieces is a "short" piece put together a few years ago. It's a piece put together from articles from an old Catholic publication,
The Catholic Mirror, and called Rome's Challenge (http://www.romeschallenge.com/).
It's an interesting bit to most people quickly researching Sabbath vs. Sunday worship.
I'm really enjoying reading through this topic as it unfolds. Very informative and pleasant as no one is arguing.
Quote from: Stevil on May 11, 2011, 07:41:23 AM
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 10, 2011, 11:16:35 PM
I don't think its fair to compare the first with the second two. The first, if freely chosen, is not inherently bad. The second two, regardless if chosen, is inherently bad.
There are Muslim women here in America that choose freely to cover themselves. Is that wrong?
You certainly have a different definition of free will than I do. Some of these countries have laws. If a woman exposes her hair, face, ankles, even if her shape can be determined under her attire she runs the risk of being disciplined. There is also a social stigma even within non Muslim countries, Minority groups often put a lot of pressure on themselves, its almost as if they were living in a Muslim country. These women aren't allowed to drive cars, they aren't allowed to rent a hotel room, they aren't even allowed to travel without a letter of approval from their man. Yes, it is happy times for the Muslim woman.
I should've clarified, I'm apologize. Of course I don't think it's free will if it's coerced by law. It's a sticky situation. Obviously not the main topic of this thread, but certainly related. All that I am saying is that it is possible (I live in Portland and have met some Muslim women who think and believe this way) for there to be a Muslim woman who is in favor of this tradition, follows this tradition, and could easily choose otherwise if she desired. In such a case I do not see it as 'oppression'.
Quote from: Stevil on May 11, 2011, 08:01:44 AM
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 10, 2011, 11:52:34 PM
first, it is not true that male prostitutes are now morally allowed to use condoms. The Pope's statement said that the use of condoms in that situation indicates the beginning of an understanding of morality.
So you admit to change then, after all these years of tradition, there has been change, no matter how miniscule.
Oh, certainly there has been change! I wouldn't consider the aforementioned matter 'change' in moral thinking, however.
Quote
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 10, 2011, 11:52:34 PM
Divine Revelation ended with the death of the apostles. That means that the fullness of truth that the Church teaches is contained in the deposit of faith as found in Sacred Scripture and the Traditions of the Apostles.
So in holding to tradition the church is essentially playing a centuries long game of Chinese Whispers. We played it at school as children, within a matter of minutes the original message had changed drastically.
Not quite. There are a few things to be considered here. First is how things were transmitted, culturally, back then. Oral tradition was super important, in a way that isn't found in most of our cultures today. The every day Jew was not literate, but most knew the Scriptures. They knew and prayed the Psalms. By heart. Think of it in the way that Catholics memorize prayers. We've prayed the same prayer to St. Michael for who knows how many years. It hasn't changed drastically. One of the oldest Catholic prayers is the
Sub tuum, which dates back to the 3rd century... and its still prayed the way it is written on old Egyption papyrus.
And there
were things written down. So, it wasn't as though
everything was word of mouth.
Also remember that the Gospel was the most important thing to the early Church. It was their lives. They
gave their lives for it. Much more value attached than a child's game. Much more effort to get things right.
Quote
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 10, 2011, 11:52:34 PM
So it would be impossible for her to change her teaching in this matter.
Nothing is impossible for an all powerful god and hence a church guided by the almighty. We have seen change, no matter how miniscule.
True, nothing is impossible for God. The point I've been trying to make is that, given the premises that the Church is founded upon, she
can't change this matter on her own. If she did, all credibility would be lost. I dare say that I would cease being Catholic if this teaching changed. Not because I am so completely attached to it and I don't believe that women can be priests... but because of the larger breach. If the Church changed this teaching, then she would be contradicting herself in a matter of faith. And we were promised by Jesus that the Church would be protected from this sort of contradiction. If the Church has no source for authority, then I cannot trust her to have the whole truth. How then do I know if baptism is required for salvation? Or if the Eucharist is really Jesus' body and blood? Or that the Church really does have the authority to forgive me my sins? Or any number of questions that make a serious impact on my salvation.
You're right- we have seen change. The Church is certainly not static. So here I should emphasize that the Church remains solid, or unchanging, on matters of
faith and
morals. Perhaps it is helpful to make a few distinctions. Here are a few words or phrases that have been tossed around.
Deposit of Faith- Holy Scripture AND Sacred Tradition, recognized and deliniated by the Magesterium (teaching body of the Church throughout the ages). INFALLIBLE. It cannot be added to or subtracted from.
Dogma- INFALLIBLE teaching of Faith or Morals, derived from the Deposit of Faith. Propagated by
ex cathedra pronouncment of reigning Pontiff or by a ecumenical council of the Church's bishops in turn ratified by reigning Pontiff. Cannot contradict Deposit of Faith or prior Dogma.
Doctrine-NOT an infallible teaching of the Church on Faith and Morals. Binding on all Catholics while propagated. Can be altered, modified, distinguished. Doctrine RARELY becomes Dogma (although it could and does)
Discipline- NOT infallible rules of behavior, binding on all Catholics while propagated, designed with the intent to keep believers "on the straight and narrow". Includes Lenten rules of fasting & priestly celibacy. Can be relaxed, altered, or abolished.
Devotion- Devotions: Private practice of prayers, meditions, and disciplines, in accordance to Church approval. Includes 99% of Marian devotions, belief in approved apparitions or visions (Private Revelation), First Saturdays, Stations of the Cross, etc...
Each of these categories are different and any 'teaching' of the Church falls under one of the above.
Quote
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 10, 2011, 11:52:34 PM
It's not terribly difficult to see that the issue of women in the priesthood is not an equality issue.
Maybe the problem is me, maybe I am lacking the brain cells required to see this. I hear what you are saying with regards to tradition and I know that a claim of divinity can persuade many a people. It seems that even the Catholics do not know why god doesn't want women in the priest hood. They simply accept this as god's will.
The only reasoning you have offered behind god's implied stance is with regards to persona Christi. By my reasoning an all powerful god could persona Christi via a woman.
I apologize, I can see my statement there wasn't very charitable.
Could an all-powerful God use a female for
in persona Christi? Sure. And God certainly could've sent the Christ as a female rather than a male. But God didn't. God sent Jesus as a male. Jesus chose only males for the priesthood. And only males can properly confect the words of consecration,
in persona Christi.
I'm not your average Catholic. I have a degree in medieval philosophy, and a minor in theology. I work for the Church. I plan to enter religious life and serve God and the Church in such a way. So you could say I'm pretty invested in these things, including the nitty-gritty why's of what the Church teaches. But I'm still not a theologian. That's not my role. I'm interested in these questions, no doubt, but I don't always have the time to fully come to understand them. So I trust the Church to teach me what is necessary to believe and I trust that she has very good reasons for teaching me something. Much in the way that I trust that my car is built correctly and will safely provide me a mode of transportation from one place to another. I don't need to understand all of the mechanics of how my car is built. It's just not practical for me to take the time to learn it in depth.
That's the same sort of thinking for many Catholics. We have good reasons for believing and trusting the Church to teach us correctly. We just don't always have the time or energy (or even feel the need) to dive deeply into something. It's not practical for us. And that's why you'll find that many Catholics simply 'accept' it as God's will and move on.
That doesn't mean it's wrong to ask why. Just remember that with each 'why' we jump into a level of further expertise. Catholics (and non-Catholics) deserve an answer when they ask why. Don't get me wrong- I definitely agree about that. I guess I'm just saying that it doesn't surprise me that most Catholics just accept it as God's will and move on.
Now, I'm a Catholic nerd and I love theology. So I'm totally willing to dive further into this. I think what is needed now is a deeper understanding of the theology that requires a male in order for a person to act
in persona Christi. I'm going to have study a little more before getting back to you. What we're diving into here is actually pretty in-depth theology... Master thesis' have been written on this subject. Heck, doctrinal thesis' have been written on this subject. I have neither a Masters nor a Doctorate. Nor are many on this forum familiar with technical theological language. So I'll do my best to understand and convey in terms we can all work with.
Quote
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 10, 2011, 11:52:34 PM
And where is the love and acceptance for the Church and its members on behalf of society?
I have heard this before, and you probably already know the well used Atheist response.
The right to discriminate is not a right, it takes away human rights.
And the circle runs around. Yeah, I gotchya. It's just that we this issue not as a political issue, but as a theological one. The priesthood isn't simply a job or a task to be done. It's a sacrament. But we'll run circles around this later.
Quote from: Recusant on May 11, 2011, 08:28:53 AM
All of the apostles celebrated the sabbath on Saturday. The Catholic church began celebrating the sabbath on Sunday many years after the death of the last apostle. Is that a faithful adherence to what is written in the Bible or the traditions of the apostles?
Perhaps it would be best for a new topic on this matter? I don't mind answering, but I don't want to get too far off track here. I'll start a new thread.