Anglicans and Catholics

[Contarini]

Contarini;5201526:

Contarini, Your Chritological/incarnational argument is incorrect. There is where your argument breaks down. At the Last Supper, Jesus conferred the priesthood only upon his male apostles when He said “do this in memory of me” (Mt 14:17; Lk 22:14). Jesus also only breathed on His male apostles in the Upper Room when He gave them the authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:22).

You beg the question by assuming that the maleness of the apostles was intended to be normative. I have addressed that point.

• Because the priest acts in persona Christi in offering the Eucharistic sacrifice and forgiving sins, the priest cannot be a woman. *

Non sequitur. You aren’t refuting my argument–just denying it. You have no basis for your “because.” Show why the priest must be male, given that Christ took on the human nature that both men and women share.

*In regard to choosing His male apostles, Mark says that Jesus called to Him “those whom He desired” (Mk 3:13). This proves that Jesus chose men according to His desire. *

He chose those particular twelve men according to His desire. Again, you provide no argument showing that their maleness (as opposed to their other characteristics) was the important factor, or that their maleness was intended (in contrast to all the other things that distinguished them from other human beings) to be normative.

Since Jesus’ will was perfectly united to that of the Father, He cannot be criticized for choosing males only, without indicting God Himself.:

Obviously I did not criticize Him. You seriously think this is a refutation? You aren’t even addressing the points I made.

I* have rebutted this above.*

No, you haven’t. Contradiction is not rebuttal. You have to have an actual argument!

• Also it’s not to say that women have no place in the church*

Of course it isn’t. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether women can act in persona Christi in a sacramental manner. And so far you haven’t provided any argument showing that they can’t. Nor have you refuted my argument from the fact that Christ took on the human nature that both men and women share.

*They have their place in the church but according to our lord’s will, it’s not in the priesthood. *

Begs the question again.

*If that’s the case then why did God make man and woman in the first place? *

I’m not even sure which part of my argument you are addressing at this point. Are you saying that femaleness is in fact less intrinsically noble than maleness? That women come to God only through men?

God made men and women to be companions to each other. But men and women both share in God’s image.

*Why didn’t he make man alone or woman alone? Did god not tell eve “Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” *

What do you take that to mean? Are you actually saying that the female can only be saved through the superior and holier nature of the male? If not, what is the relevance of this statement?

 

[Contarini]

• Jesus has taken on the human nature as a male for specific purpose, Jesus, the Son of God, is both priest and King after the order of Melchizedek, and so His priesthood embodies kingship and sonship. *

No dispute about that. But you’re assuming, again, that the masculinity implied by our terms “kingship” and “sonship” is intrinsic to Jesus’ nature and work. I don’t dispute, by the way, that masculinity and femininity are *symbolic *of our relationship to God. Clearly they are. But just as all humans are symbolically female in relation to God, so a woman can sacramentally represent Christ, even though this is a symbolically male role. To say that a woman cannot take on such a role would imply that men can’t be part of the Bride of Christ. Which, as Aquinas would say, is inconvenient.

Women cannot act in persona christi, because Jesus as the son of God offered up his body (male) for us,

Again, you assume without argument that the maleness of Jesus’ body is significant for salvation. Why?

• when he said “do this in remembrance of me” a woman cannot act in his place because she cannot act as a son to god! *

Then a man can’t be part of the Church, which is the Bride of Christ.

*Why can’t women be saved if they cannot be priests? *

For the reasons I have already given several times. It is an axiom of orthodox Christology that what is not assumed is not saved. If Jesus assumed only a “male human nature,” then women cannot be saved. This did not bother Christians in the past, because it was believed that men more fully expressed the common human nature than women. But if you say that men and women have complementary but separate human natures, then you threaten the entire edifice of traditional Christology and soteriology. You are tearing the house down in order to save the front porch.

*was not mary magdelene saved? was she a priest? *

No. But she was ontologically capable of being a priest. Any baptized Christian is.

*Exactly!! and that church is the holy catholic church! *

Of course, as an Anglican I don’t believe that this can be simply identified with the group of local churches that are in communion with Rome.

• why does the church keep this teaching if it’s all about culture as you mention above?**would it have not “moved with the times” as other denominations clearly have? *

First of all, your Communion has a generally conservative approach to tradition (though not quite as conservative, for the most part, as the Eastern Churches). Furthermore, your Communion has locked itself into a doctrine of church authority that makes it hard to revisit more peripheral teachings in the light of the central core. The fairly moderate attempt to do this at Vatican II has set off shockwaves that you guys are still struggling with forty years later. This authoritarianism has many blessings–I’m glad that you are there to keep us giddy Protestants from charging off into the stratosphere. But it isn’t the be all and end all of what it means to be the Church. You also need us to keep prodding you to consider how the more peripheral aspects of the tradition are related to the core teachings we all share.

The onus is on you to refute 2000 years of prayer, teachings and the early church fathers (who some had direct links to the apostles!).

And I have shown how women’s ordination follows from one of the central Christological affirmations of the Fathers. You haven’t addressed this argument.

• You assume that the church downplays the role of women *

Please show me where I said this.
*
*

await your response. I have clearly refuted your argument above

No, you haven’t. Anyone can say “that’s not true.” The hard part is giving an argument to support your denial. You haven’t done that. You haven’t shown how women can be ontologically incapable of ordination, if they share in the human nature that Christ assumed for our salvation. You haven’t shown how men can be part of the Bride of Christ if women can’t sacramentally represent Christ the Church’s Bridegroom.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

Come on is right! Jay keeps popping off at other churches and someone finally popped back.

Then I would say that someone is just as bad as the person he was reacting to.

I get so sick to death of these same garden variety defenses of our faith that are played out and quite frankly weak. We are THE Church and we have been here 2000 years! Blah Blah Blah. It’s sickening and worn out. If this is all you got, then please respectfully just shut up and let someone else try.

I think you should just go right ahead and try. Don’t wait for someone else to “respectfully just shut up”.

 

[Peter_J]

And you think ordination has nothing to do with salvation? What is the point of ordination, then?

As you probably know from reading the forum, I generally don’t exactly “see eye to eye” with gurneyhalleck1. But in this case I have to agree with him. He never said that “ordination has nothing to do with salvation” (are you trying to misinterpret his statement, or what?) but rather that the passage wasn’t about who can be ordained.

 

[Louie1983]

*Why didn’t he make man alone or woman alone? Did god not tell eve “Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” *

No this is not what i’m saying at all, you see how you twist words to suit your beliefs? My point here is that the god created man and woman for a reason! He made them different for specific purposes. In order that they can both fulfill god’s plan how god intended to do so!

*I’m not even sure which part of my argument you are addressing at this point. Are you saying that femaleness is in fact less intrinsically noble than maleness? That women come to God only through men?

God made men and women to be companions to each other. But men and women both share in God’s image*

No i’m not saying femaleness is lesser than malesness, if you had rea through my comments clearly then you would have read how i explained that the catholic church has millions of women saints and has elevated the virgin mary as queen of heaven and earth.! Agaim, picking and choosing is not going to work my friend.
“Begs the question again.”*

For you ofcourse it does, because you are unable to understand scripture and tradition correctly!

"Of course it isn’t. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether women can act in persona Christi in a sacramental manner. And so far you haven’t provided any argument showing that they can’t. Nor have you refuted my argument from the fact that Christ took on the human nature that both men and women share."

I have plenty of argument, and i choose to rely on 2000 years of church teaching, the early church fathers and the church that christ founded (the catholic church) that guided by the holy spirit. You pick and choose what you want to believe an pass it off as being “central Christological affirmations of the Fathers”, if this is so then why do the church fathers disagree with you?

No, you haven’t. Contradiction is not rebuttal. You have to have an actual argument!

Oh yes i have, i provided argument but you continue to disreagrd this and put forward your won beliefs and what the faith means to you! This is dangerous given you are not part of a church that can prove it has apostolic succession.

Obviously I did not criticize Him. You seriously think this is a refutation? You aren’t even addressing the points I made.

Clearly you did! If Jesus is united to the father and he chose only males then clearly it was God’s will to keep the priesthood for men only! Haven’t adressed your points? i clearly have but you choose to reject because you are blind to the truth.

He chose those particular twelve men according to His desire. Again, you provide no argument showing that their maleness (as opposed to their other characteristics) was the important factor, or that their maleness was intended (in contrast to all the other things that distinguished them from other human beings) to be normative

Contarini, are you serious??? no argument?? are you saying that Jesus chose men because they just happned to be there? he didn’t name them all at once he named them as apostles gradually. he would have definately came across women while doing this but he didn’t choose any women! His sinless mother was not even chosen as a disciple and she was without sin!

Non sequitur. You aren’t refuting my argument–just denying it. You have no basis for your “because.” Show why the priest must be male, given that Christ took on the human nature that both men and women share.

Yeah sure Cantarini. you ask why the priest must be male? women cannot be priests because women cannot be fathers. Fatherhood and priesthood have always been synonymous, even back to the days of the ancient people of Israel (Judges 17:10; 18:19). Priests are spiritual fathers just as women religious are spiritual mothers. Each has beautiful and defined roles within the Church.

To be continued…

 

[Louie1983]

You beg the question by assuming that the maleness of the apostles was intended to be normative. I have addressed that point

You haven’t addressed anything, all you have explained is that you believe male and female are exactly the same. I agree that men and women are equal but they each have been given their own roles within the church and within humanity as a whole! This is explained clearly in the scriptures! Here are some examples that clearly explain that women and men have different roles:

1 Cor. 11:3 – “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”

Eph. 5:22-24 – “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of his wife, as Christ is the head of the church, His Body, and is himself its savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.”

No, you haven’t. Anyone can say “that’s not true.” The hard part is giving an argument to support your denial. You haven’t done that. You haven’t shown how women can be ontologically incapable of ordination, if they share in the human nature that Christ assumed for our salvation. You haven’t shown how men can be part of the Bride of Christ if women can’t sacramentally represent Christ the Church’s Bridegroom.

Forgive me but aren’t you doing the same thing here “that’s not true”! I have supported my argument but you reject them. WHich is your choice ofcourse but the difference here is i believe in a church that has the apostolic succession and the guidnace of the holy spirit! Can you say the same? no, you rely on your “ontologically” because you are trying to make sense of the scriptures to satisfy you! The bridegroom aspect is used to reflect the love god has for church and the church for god (what a marriage should look like also)! don’t believe me? here it is the scriptures "“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of his wife, as Christ is the head of the church, His Body, and is himself its savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.”

Please show me where I said this.

It’s in your argument! Why can’t it be accepted that women were not meant for the priesthood? The bible clearly articulates that women are meant to be submissive to their husbands - don’t believe me again? here it is in scriptures Titus 2:5 –
"Wives should be submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited.

And I have shown how women’s ordination follows from one of the central Christological affirmations of the Fathers. You haven’t addressed this argument.

You have shown absolutely nothing in your argument. Christological affirmation of the fathers you say? Then tell why didn;t they start ordaining women from the beginning? why did it take a reformation 1500 years after Christ left the earth? here’s a couple of quotes from early church fathers:

• “For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).
• “Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination.” Firmilian, To Cyprian, Epistle 75[74]:16 (A.D. 256).

to be continued…

 

[Louie1983]

Of course, as an Anglican I don’t believe that this can be simply identified with the group of local churches that are in communion with Rome

To come into the fullness o god’s truth and his church, this is the best way! Through his holy catholic church.

No. But she was ontologically capable of being a priest. Any baptized Christian is

Incorrect, any baptised Catholic can! I’m sorry to break this to you but the priesthood within the catholic church is the only valid priesthood. the catholic church has the only proof of apostolic succession all the way back to Peter himself. You are correct in saying that mary was capable of becoming a priest, but again as i have proved, explained and articulated to you this was not God’s intention for e.g:

• Judges 17:10; 18:19 – fatherhood and priesthood are synonymous terms. Micah says, “Stay with me, and be to me a father and a priest.”
• Gen. 22:9-13 - as foreshadowed, God chose our redemption to be secured by the sacrificial love that the Son gives to the Father.
• John 20:22 - Jesus only breathed on the male apostles, the first bishops, giving them the authority to forgive and retain sins. In fact, the male priesthood of Christianity was a distinction from the priestesses of paganism that existed during these times. A female priesthood would be a reversion to non-Christian practices.

For the reasons I have already given several times. It is an axiom of orthodox Christology that what is not assumed is not saved. If Jesus assumed only a “male human nature,” then women cannot be saved. This did not bother Christians in the past, because it was believed that men more fully expressed the common human nature than women. But if you say that men and women have complementary but separate human natures, then you threaten the entire edifice of traditional Christology and soteriology. You are tearing the house down in order to save the front porch.

I have refuted this argument below, but i will take you to ask again if you wish. Where does it say in the 2000 year history of the church “If Jesus assumed only a “male human nature,” then women cannot be saved”? This is your own argument and theory that you have come up with. Nowhere in the church’s teaching does it state the above. It did not bother the christians you say? That’s because it wasn’t an issue, it was always known, preached and practised that the priesthood is only reserved for men. Just another smoke and mirrors ploy on your part.

Then a man can’t be part of the Church, which is the Bride of Christ.

Yes he can, here are more examples:

• Eph. 5:22-24 – “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of his wife, as Christ is the head of the church, His Body, and is himself its savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.”
• Gen. 22:9-13 - as foreshadowed, God chose our redemption to be secured by the sacrificial love that the Son gives to the Father.
• 1 Cor. 14:34-35 - Paul says a woman is not permitted to preach the word of God in the Church. It has always been the tradition of the Church for the priest or deacon alone (an ordained male) to read and preach the Gospel.

Again, you assume without argument that the maleness of Jesus’ body is significant for salvation. Why?

Because Jesus himself past on the priesthood to MEN only! Women have great roles in the church, the church has long praised the roles of women in the church as mothers and carers. But their role does not extend to the priesthood, no matter what you believe to be the truth. This is Jesus’ command and has been the tradition of the church for the last 2000 years and forever will be. Here are some more scriptural passages to prove that the priesthood is reserved for men alone:

• 1 Tim. 2:12 - Paul says that a woman is not permitted to hold teaching authority in the Church.
• Isaiah 3:12 – Isaiah complains that the priests of ancient Israel were having their authority usurped by women.
• 1 Cor. 4:15 - Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.”

to be continued…

 

[Louie1983]

No dispute about that. But you’re assuming, again, that the masculinity implied by our terms “kingship” and “sonship” is intrinsic to Jesus’ nature and work.

don’t believe me? Here are some examples in scripture that prove god had a purpose for men and women in the church(apart from becoming his followers):

-1 Cor. 4:15 - Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.”

• Phil. 2:22 - Paul calls Timothy’s service to him as a son serves a “father.”

-1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders’ ministry to the people like a father with his children.

*I don’t dispute, by the way, that masculinity and femininity are symbolic of our relationship to God. Clearly they are. But just as all humans are symbolically female in relation to God, so a woman can sacramentally represent Christ, even though this is a symbolically male role. *
I have just given you examples from scriptures where god intentionally places responsibilities and roles with men! Again, god made man and woman and intended them to have roles in the church. Priesthood is not one for women.

*To say that a woman cannot take on such a role would imply that men can’t be part of the Bride of Christ. *
Incorrect, i have addressed this before but here it is again:

• Mark 14:17,20; Luke 22:14 - the language “the twelve” and “apostles” shows Jesus commissioned the Eucharistic priesthood by giving holy orders only to men.
• Gen. 14:10; Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 - Jesus, the Son of God, is both priest and King after the priest-king Melchizedek. Jesus’ priesthood embodies both Kingship and Sonship.
• Gen. 22:9-13 - as foreshadowed, God chose our redemption to be secured by the sacrificial love that the Son gives to the Father.
• John 20:22 - Jesus only breathed on the male apostles, the first bishops, giving them the authority to forgive and retain sins.

Which, as Aquinas would say, is inconvenient.

Not sure what you mean here. but please remember also that everything the saints taught or believed were not official church teaching, they had their personal opinions and then there was the magisterium who taught infallibly. Your christology and ontological answers are very weak, clearly because they are of your personal opinion and not of God’s church. Our lord promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, so the apostolic teachings and traditions cannot be worng as jesus also promised that he would with it even until the end of the world.

 

[Louie1983]

Louie1983;5203379:

I get so sick to death of these same garden variety defenses of our faith that are played out and quite frankly weak. We are THE Church and we have been here 2000 years! Blah Blah Blah. It’s sickening and worn out. If this is all you got, then please respectfully just shut up and let someone else try. It’s embarrassing.

same garden defences that are played out hey tab39? maybe they are “played out” because these are the teachings of the faith? our catholic faith has not changed in 2000 years!

I will look past your telling me to shut-up and i will pray for you.

Yes i’m all for letting someone else having a try, so why don’t you have a go?

 

[Louie1983]

Then I would say that someone is just as bad as the person he was reacting to.

I think you should just go right ahead and try. Don’t wait for someone else to “respectfully just shut up”.

Thanks Peter,

 

[Contarini]

As you probably know from reading the forum, I generally don’t exactly “see eye to eye” with gurneyhalleck1. But in this case I have to agree with him. He never said that “ordination has nothing to do with salvation” (are you trying to misinterpret his statement, or what?) but rather that the passage wasn’t about who can be ordained.

I know quite well that it’s not explicitly about that. But I’m arguing that it has implications for who can be ordained. He denies this. How is this possible, unless he denies a link between ordination and salvation? If ordination has to do with salvation, then the fact that this text is about salvation does not preclude the possibility that it has implications for ordination–in fact those implications are very likely.

Ediwn

 

[Contarini]

*Why didn’t he make man alone or woman alone? Did god not tell eve “Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” *

No this is not what i’m saying at all, you see how you twist words to suit your beliefs?

No, I don’t. The passage in italics, which you disown, is a direct quote from your post #79!

My point here is that the god created man and woman for a reason! He made them different for specific purposes. In order that they can both fulfill god’s plan how god intended to do so!

That’s not under dispute. The question is whether those “different purposes” preclude women being ordained. And I repeat: if women are incapable of acting in persona Christi, it must be because they do not share in the human nature Christ assumed. You can wiggle all you want, but you have no answer to this.

No i’m not saying femaleness is lesser than malesness

Then what is the relevance of the passage you quoted from Genesis about the woman’s desire being to her husband? And why is it that women can’t act in persona Christi? What is it about the nature of femininity that disqualifies them?

if you had rea through my comments clearly then you would have read how i explained that the catholic church has millions of women saints and has elevated the virgin mary as queen of heaven and earth.! Agaim, picking and choosing is not going to work my friend.

You’re the one picking and choosing. You are picking one way the Catholic Church honors women and claiming that it makes the question of ordination irrelevant. It doesn’t. You can’t explain how the refusal to ordain women is compatible with the belief that men and women both share in the nature Christ assumed. You just keep trying to charge off to other issues in order to avoid dealing with this.

For you ofcourse it does, because you are unable to understand scripture and tradition correctly!

There’s no “for me” here. Logic is not relative. Your argument assumed a point that is under dispute. That is called “begging the question,” and it’s a classic logical fallacy.

I have plenty of argument

So far you have no argument against the point I’m arguing. You just prefer to argue other points to distract from your inability to answer my argument.

and i choose to rely on 2000 years of church teaching, the early church fathers and the church that christ founded (the catholic church) that guided by the holy spirit. You pick and choose what you want to believe an pass it off as being “central Christological affirmations of the Fathers”

Do you deny that the principle “what is not assumed is not saved” was an important principle in the Christological controversies? This is why Appolinarism was condemned as a heresy.

if this is so then why do the church fathers disagree with you?

Because, as I’ve already explained, they believed that women are biologically inferior instances of the common human nature, and that femininity is an imperfect form of masculinity. Find me a passage in the Fathers that says that men and women are equal but have different natures. Instead, what you will find is that they have the same nature but that women are “weaker” and hence should be submissive to men. We don’t believe this any more (at least I don’t and your Pope doesn’t, and you don’t seem to, though you jump around so much it’s hard to tell). We’re all in the same boat in that respect. The difference is that I re-evaluate ordination practice based on the Fathers’ theological principles, while you are willing to abandon important principles in order to preserve the traditional practice.

 

[Contarini]

Oh yes i have, i provided argument

You provided no argument showing that women do not share in the human nature Christ assumed, and you provided no argument explaining how sharing in that nature is compatible with being ontologically incapable of receiving ordination. Not one of your “arguments” has addressed the ontological question at all. Furthermore, I have already refuted the argument you presented from the maleness of the Twelve by pointing out that nothing in the Gospels indicates that their maleness was intended to be normative.

but you continue to disreagrd this and put forward your won beliefs and what the faith means to you!

No, I’m pointing out the logical consequence of our belief in the Incarnation, which you are ignoring. You may be a relativist, but I’m not. My argument is either true or false. If it’s false, show how.

This is dangerous

Everything worth doing is dangerous. If you have a faith that is free of danger, it’s not worth having.

Clearly you did! If Jesus is united to the father and he chose only males then clearly it was God’s will to keep the priesthood for men only! Haven’t adressed your points? i clearly have but you choose to reject because you are blind to the truth.

You are repeating an argument I have already refuted. You cannot assume that Jesus intended only men to be priests just because all the Twelve were men. We know that Jesus didn’t intend only Jews to be priests, even though all the Twelve were Jews. And in Galatians 3:21 Paul mentions male/female along with Jew/Gentile as distinctions that are abolished “in Christ” (which as gurneyhalleck pointed out refers to salvation, to which I responded that this includes ordination, which certainly has to do with salvation). Hence, we have very good reason for believing that the maleness of the Twelve is no more normative (for the Christian priesthood) than their Jewishness. Furthermore, even the number twelve (clearly chosen to represent the twelve tribes) is more obviously important than the gender of the Twelve Disciples, which we only know accidentally from the fact that they all have masculine names. If priests have to be male, then there should only be twelve of them.

All of these are arguments I have already made. It is very tiresome to have to repeat them over and over. But since you keep ignoring them, and then denying that you are ignoring them, I guess I’ll have to keep repeating them to keep you honest.

Contarini, are you serious??? no argument?? are you saying that Jesus chose men because they just happned to be there?

No, I’m claiming that he chose twelve particular men because they were the best people at hand for the particular purpose He had in mind.

he didn’t name them all at once he named them as apostles gradually. he would have definately came across women while doing this but he didn’t choose any women! His sinless mother was not even chosen as a disciple and she was without sin!

I don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception, of course, but I certainly agree that Mary was very holy and I consider it a pious opinion that she was without actual sin, so I don’t basically disagree with this (though since it’s not in Scripture I am not willing to put too much doctrinal weight on it). However, the more relevant point is that Jesus didn’t necessarily pick the twelve holiest people He could find. That is your assumption, not based on anything. Given the kingdom symbolism of what He was doing (and the parallel with the twelve sons of Jacob), and given cultural attitudes of the time, choosing women for that particular mission wouldn’t have made sense unless He had been committed to making some kind of feminist point. Which clearly He wasn’t. That doesn’t prove that He was making an anti-feminist point either. I can’t see any evidence that He chose the Twelve to make any point about gender one way or the other.

Yeah sure Cantarini. you ask why the priest must be male?

With some reference to Jesus’ taking on of our human nature in the Incarnation. Or is it too much to ask a Catholic to refer your theology to the central mystery of the Faith? Perhaps you aren’t so Catholic after all.

women cannot be priests because women cannot be fathers. Fatherhood and priesthood have always been synonymous, even back to the days of the ancient people of Israel (Judges 17:10; 18:19)

Given Galatians 3:21 and the entire book of Hebrews, you can’t simply read the NT priesthood as the equivalent of the OT priesthood.

Priests are spiritual fathers just as women religious are spiritual mothers

If nothing else did, this bizarre parallel (so common among Catholics) would show that something is seriously wrong with how you think about ordination. Women religious aren’t parallel to priests–they are parallel to male religious. The fact that members of your Communion routinely make this parallel between priests and female religious shows that you have a bad conscience in some level about the obvious fact that there is no female counterpart to the male priesthood.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Y
You haven’t addressed anything, all you have explained is that you believe male and female are exactly the same.

No, I don’t believe anything of the sort. I believe that male and female share the same human nature. The Fathers believed this. Aquinas believed this. I believe this. But you can’t logically believe this and still say both that men and women are equal and that women shouldn’t be ordained.

And with regard to the choosing of the Twelve, again I never said that men and women were the same. I said that there’s no good reason to think that Jesus’ choosing of twelve men was intended to be normative with regard to gender, any more than with regard to ethnicity or number (in fact there are stronger reasons for considering both of these to be normative than for considering gender to be normative).

I agree that men and women are equal

And there you agree with me and disagree with most of the Christian tradition.

but they each have been given their own roles within the church and within humanity as a whole!

The latter is true. The former isn’t. See Gal. 3:21.

This is explained clearly in the scriptures! Here are some examples that clearly explain that women and men have different roles:

So you’ll take a literalistic exegesis (or what you think is a literal exegesis) of the Scriptures over a basic affirmation of historic Christian orthodoxy? Hardly Catholic, that.

**
Forgive me but aren’t you doing the same thing here “that’s not true”! I have supported my argument but you reject them.*

I have given my reasons. Over and over. And over and over you simply ignore them. You don’t even try to explain why the gender of the Twelve is relevant, because you think it’s obvious that Jesus would have picked women if He wasn’t trying to make a point that women can’t be picked. This makes no sense. The remarkable thing would be if He did pick women. You haven’t tried to explain how women can be ontologically incapable of acting in persona Christi if they share the nature Christ assumed.

Can you say the same? no, you rely on your “ontologically”

It’s your Church’s, not mine. Your Communion says that women are incapable of being ordained. Not just that they shouldn’t be, but that they can’t. They aren’t “valid matter” (lovely phrase for image-bearers of God). Say the words over them and nothing happens. This makes no sense if women share in the nature Christ assumed, unless they are defective in some way (as people used to believe).

because you are trying to make sense of the scriptures to satisfy you!

In the best Catholic tradition. While you are taking a literalistic interpretation, in the best fundamentalist tradition.

The bridegroom aspect is used to reflect the love god has for church and the church for god (what a marriage should look like also)! don’t believe me?

Of course I believe you.

It’s in your argument!

No, I did not make a general claim that your Communion downplays the role of women. I made a specific argument regarding the priesthood, with regard to which your Communion clearly denies that women have any role at all. That’s not some accusation on my part–it’s obvious. I am not so stupid as to get into a broad argument as to the role of women in the Catholic Church. You keep trying to trap me into turning this into a feminist equal-rights argument. It isn’t. It’s an argument about the theology of the Incarnation and its implications for ordination.

Why can’t it be accepted that women were not meant for the priesthood?

It can’t be accepted that women are “invalid matter” for ordination because this is not compatible with the belief that women are full and non-defective sharers in the human nature Christ assumed.

The bible clearly articulates that women are meant to be submissive to their husbands

Which many scholars think was a cultural mandate intended to avoid giving Christians a bad moral reputation, and which your own Pope said could not be taken literally. That’s a red herring. It’s not the basis on which your Magisterium defends the male-only priesthood.

You have shown absolutely nothing in your argument. Christological affirmation of the fathers you say? Then tell why didn;t they start ordaining women from the beginning?

Because they shared the common cultural belief that women were biologically inferior.

why did it take a reformation 1500 years after Christ left the earth?

Indirectly, through establishing the primacy of Scripture and the principle that all the baptized are priests (though Protestants have often taken both of these principles way too far). The Reformers did not, of course, favor women’s ordination. In fact they reduced women’s role in the Church in many ways and emphasized wifely submission.

here’s a couple of quotes from early church fathers:

• "For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it,

I’m not going to argue that Ignatius favored women’s ordination, but this passage is irrelevant. Has no one ever told you that “man” is used inclusively? I don’t know for sure if Ignatius is using “anthropos” or “aner” here, but I’d assume “anthropos” unless shown otherwise (the inclusive form).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Incorrect, any baptised Catholic can! I’m sorry to break this to you but the priesthood within the catholic church is the only valid priesthood.

Bunk. Your Church recognizes Orthodox orders. Not that this is relevant–it just shows how poorly you understand your own Chruch’s teachings.

I’m not going to address your prooftexts, since you refuse to address my Christological argument. Throwing a whole catena of proofexts at people is a fundamentalist tactic for exhausting and confusing the opposition. I’m not disputing that priests in the OT were male or that all the Twelve were male.

In fact, the male priesthood of Christianity was a distinction from the priestesses of paganism that existed during these times. A female priesthood would be a reversion to non-Christian practices.

Pagan priestesses did not have the leadership roles that Christian presbyters had. And that’s clearly why women did not (as far as I know, though I know that some feminist scholars argue this) serve as presbyters in the early Catholic Church, and why female deacons had very limited roles. It was a leadership position.

I have refuted this argument below

No, you haven’t.

but i will take you to ask again if you wish. Where does it say in the 2000 year history of the church “If Jesus assumed only a “male human nature,” then women cannot be saved”? This is your own argument and theory that you have come up with.

Of course. This is a discussion forum. I’m discussing. You just want to throw prooftexts around. You can’t refute my argument, so you result to the ultimate, relativistic “it’s just your opinion.”

I am drawing a logical implication from historic Christian doctrine. Nowhere in the Church’s teaching does it say that there are two human natures. Women were seen as sharing in human nature imperfectly. Hence, the Christological principle was not seen as mandating women’s ordination.

Then a man can’t be part of the Church, which is the Bride of Christ.

Yes he can, here are more examples

That’s exactly my point. Men can be part of the Bride of Christ. Therefore, you can’t argue that women can’t sacramentally represent Christ the Bridegroom. Clearly the gendered roles we take on symbolically and sacramentally don’t have to correspond with our biological gender (or sex, if you prefer).

Because Jesus himself past on the priesthood to MEN only! /QUOTE

Which you can’t show to be normative. You just assume it.

This discussion is pointless. We can go round and round endlessly. If you aren’t interested in discussing the implications of the Christological principle that what is not assumed is not saved, I’d really just as soon do something else with my time. (I should be grading–that’s why I’m staying up all night!)

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

I know quite well that it’s not explicitly about that. But I’m arguing that it has implications for who can be ordained. He denies this. How is this possible, unless he denies a link between ordination and salvation?

Oh brother. That ties with some of the worst rhetoric I’ve heard on this forum, from Protestants or Catholics.

 

[Contarini]

Oh brother. That ties with some of the worst rhetoric I’ve heard on this forum, from Protestants or Catholics.

Stop bemoaning my bad rhetoric and explain how you think gurneyhalleck’s argument works.

I quote Galatians 3:21.
He says “that’s about salvation, not ordination.”

How is he not separating ordination from salvation? If they are connected, why is pointing out that the passage is talking about salvation somehow a refutation of the claim that it’s relevant for ordination?

You are usually a logical person. Why at this point do you resort to reproaching me for my rhetoric, instead of dealing with the issue I’m raising? Why is it taboo to criticize Catholic reasoning on this particular point?

Edwin

 

[tomarin]

Why is it taboo to criticize Catholic reasoning on this particular point?

Probably because, as you astutely pointed out earlier in this thread, it undermines the Magisterium’s claims to infallibility.

 

[Peter_J]

Stop bemoaning my bad rhetoric and explain how you think gurneyhalleck’s argument works.

I quote Galatians 3:21.
He says “that’s about salvation, not ordination.”

How is he not separating ordination from salvation? If they are connected, why is pointing out that the passage is talking about salvation somehow a refutation of the claim that it’s relevant for ordination?

You are usually a logical person.

Thank you.

I think you’re usually a logical person too, but at some times (like now) you can be extremely silly and/or polemical.

Why is it taboo to criticize Catholic reasoning on this particular point?

Edwin

Based on my experience on CAF, I would say there are a lot of Catholics who think that criticizing Catholic reasoning on any point ought to be taboo. (I’m not one of those Catholics, I don’t think.)

 

[tomarin]

I think you’re usually a logical person too, but at some times (like now) you can be extremely silly and/or polemical.

So you don’t think his theological argument for women’s ordination is logical? It seems sound to me. If it’s not logical, what are its flaws?