G
- Status
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Ok, let’s.
Alter Christus, in persona Christi: we are all baptized into Christ, we are all members of his body, and we are all called to manifest Christ to the world. Men and women can act as another Christ, and in his person. You must be referring to a specific office or function of Christ, and not Christ’s self in general.
What is it about offering sacrifice* in particular* that renders women unsuitable or incapable? After all, the orthodox and catholic doctrine of the sacraments is that Christ is the real priest, and that the *ministerial *priesthood is just that; priests act as ministers of the one sacrificing priest. You need to give a reason as to what it is that allows a man to stand-in for Christ qua sacrificing priest, and not a woman.
- By this logic, men shouldn’t be laymen, since the laity “receive this love in… femininity.” And you can’t claim that they do so in virtue of their membership of a feminine church, for we’ve already established that women have membership of a masculine Christ. What’s good for the goose!
- What does this even mean? I suspect these are platitudes. What is “giving masculinity”? What does it actually involve? Can you accurately and precisely describe it? If not, it’s meaningless, and shouldn’t be admitted as theology.
- Christ’s masculinity and the Father’s are not equivalent in any way. The Father is beyond sex, having no corporeal or biological form. Christ is obviously sexed and gendered, being born a man.
- Christ’s masculinity *is *irrelevant in some spheres. E.g., soteriology. Patristic axion: that which is not assumed is not saved. Surely we don’t want to argue that sex is so important that, because Christ didn’t assume the female sex organs, women aren’t saved! In soteriology the focus is on the human nature. Why not in theological anthropology?
- I’m yet to see anywhere a theological claim that women can fulfill a masculine role, other than the priesthood, the masculinity of which is precisely what we’re disputing.
This seems beyond the remit of a theological debate.
C
Contarini
Guest
Unbelievably clueless arguments like this do little to persuade dissenters that the traditional position is true.Well, this is one of the saddest things I’ve ever read. I must be missing the comments Ruth Gledhill made. Went through it three times and didn’t see the quote. Are you saying that the Catholic weekly newspaper is in agreement with this decision? Not that it really matters.
This decision only puts more space between Anglican and Catholic communions. This will never, ever, be accepted by the CC.
Maybe, at some distant time in the future science will find a way that men can become pregnant. I mean is it fair that men should be denied this privilege?
You’re assuming a parallel between the biological role of motherhood and the sacramental role of priesthood/episcopacy, so that one is the counterpart of the other. Where on earth does that leave physical fathers?
Now this line of thinking may actually be correct. There may be a profound truth here. But rolling eyes and making smarty comments doesn’t bring out that truth. On the face of it, it’s just silly, equating two clearly different things.
Besides, it has nothing to do with “fair.”
It has to do with expressing the fullness of God’s creation in the image of God and of our participation in Christ through the Sacraments.
I’m willing to submit to the Catholic Church on this one. But I’m not willing to submit to every sarcastic wise-cracker on the Internet who obviously can’t be bothered to think through the theological issues or understand the position he’s ridiculing.
Edwin
K
KP3243
Guest
This is the problem when people started using inclusive language Bibles.
K
KP3243
Guest
What is it about offering sacrifice in particular that renders women unsuitable or incapable? After all, the orthodox and catholic doctrine of the sacraments is that Christ is the real priest, and that the ministerial priesthood is just that; priests act as ministers of the one sacrificing priest. You need to give a reason as to what it is that allows a man to stand-in for Christ qua sacrificing priest, and not a woman.
Because Jesus didn’t tell us we could, it’s His Church not ours.
E
Elizium23
Guest
As an organization, The Tablet presents no requirement on my part for charity, and I stand by this comparison; while it may be a bit off-topic for me to expound on it, I will for your benefit explain what I mean. Identifying as a member of a class which the Tablet and their ilk seek to marginalize and destroy, I find camaraderie in persecuted Jewish people and I join them in a call of “Never again” in memory of the Shoah. Yet the cycle continues. The Tablet and company are not as far advanced in their mission to destroy us, but have made great inroads in a propaganda campaign (the Germans were well-known for their prowess here) to destroy the Church and create schism from the inside. It is their belief that Catholics should follow other Christians down the road to perdition which was well-laid more than 500 years ago as they cut themselves off from the fullness of the Truth. Those Catholics who do not follow will be bullied, shamed, and persecuted for not falling into line. It is the same old story throughout history and both Christians and Jews are in it together.
Physical fatherhood and the priesthood are intrinsically linked. Physical motherhood and the Church are likewise intrinsically linked. They each share qualities which cannot be replicated or exchanged between the sexes. I suggest for anyone who cannot grasp this to undertake a good, reputable study of the Book of Revelation. This misunderstood book is about liturgy, the Church, and marriage. Sure, it’s about the End Times and good and evil, too, but that is but a tiny part of its import. Revelation is a book that’s not just good for predicting the future, but for exploring the present, and the relationship of the faithful to God, the relationship of the Holy Trinity to itself, and by extension, all human relationships, especially that of conjugal love.
The parallel of men trying to become pregnant is a perspicacious one, in light of the onslaught of homosexualism and transgender controversies beseiging the Church and modern technology at the same time. Someday in the future it may be possible for men to become “pregnant”, but that will not make them into women, and will not change the nature of God’s vision of motherhood, any more than attempting to ordain women changes God’s vision of the priesthood.
K
KP3243
Guest
Sacrifice of the Mass is not the only function a priest has. Don’t forget casting out demons is also part of the job description and for some reason the vast majority of demonic possessions happen to women not men, the Church does not know why this is but it might one of the reasons why Jesus only chose men for the priesthood and not women. Exorcisms are both spiritually and physically draining.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
The first priest is Adam, Jesus is the 2nd Adam, all bishops are icons of Christ, priests represent their bishop. No where does Eve get to take on the sin of Adam and atone for his mistake. In fact, it is Adam’s sin which caused humanity to fall; and the 2nd Adam recovers humanity. Eve shouldn’t be forced to take on the sins of humanity for Adam and never has.
C
CarolNoel
Guest
LOL
C
CarolNoel
Guest
Jeepers! I wonder what good old Henry would have thought about all of this…
K
KP3243
Guest
Word! Adam desecrated the sanctuary not Eve.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
(1) The icon (εἰκων/צלם) of God himself in Genesis 1.27 is both male and female. Imaging God doesn’t seem to be limited by sex any more than being in Christ is limited by sex.
(2) Are you suggesting that bishops and priests take on the sin of Adam?
(3) Are you suggesting that Christ, in taking on Adam’s sin, was not also taking on himself the sins of women?
K
KP3243
Guest
Whose job was to protect the garden?
N
Novocastrian
Guest
(1) I’m curious about your exorcism stats. Based on my imperfect memory of the Gospels, I’d say that the Biblical evidence re: exorcism, at least as encountered by Christ and the early Church, shows more men requiring exorcism than women.
(2) This argument here represents one of the major red-lights for me when it comes to the non-ordination of women. A traditional position is so often defended by completely un-traditional, ad hoc arguments. I’m not convinced that that’s good theological method.
S
SteveVH
Guest
You are completely missing my point. Ordaining women is neither Biblical nor Traditional. The entire COE argument is based upon the issue of equality and fairness. While my comparison is obviously absurd, so is their argument. That is why I made the comparison. When the whims of secular society begin to influence and even govern the ministerial priesthood we are in grave trouble.
Being ordained to the priesthood is not a matter of worthiness, as if women were somehow less than men. We must follow Christ’s example and that of the Apostles. If you think my argument is clueless then let me give you one from a person much more qualified to comment:
From Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
*"2…In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”(5)
In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God’s eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, “through the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood,(6) the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord’s way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (cf. Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers(7) who would succeed them in their ministry.(8) Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles’ mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.(9)
- Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.
The New Testament and the whole history of the Church give ample evidence of the presence in the Church of women, true disciples, witnesses to Christ in the family and in society, as well as in total consecration to the service of God and of the Gospel. “By defending the dignity of women and their vocation, the Church has shown honor and gratitude for those women who-faithful to the Gospel-have shared in every age in the apostolic mission of the whole People of God. They are the holy martyrs, virgins and mothers of families, who bravely bore witness to their faith and passed on the Church’s faith and tradition by bringing up their children in the spirit of the Gospel.”(11)
Moreover, it is to the holiness of the faithful that the hierarchical structure of the Church is totally ordered. For this reason, the Declaration Inter Insigniores recalls: “the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love (cf. 1 Cor 12 and 13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints.”(12)
- 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.
Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.
From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate."*
N
Novocastrian
Guest
It was Adam’s job to dress and keep the garden. We can argue over whether שׁמר here means protect. I’d ask, protect from what?
But even so, you’re dodging the theological issues here. Image and sin. Both are icons, both sin, both are redeemed in Christ. The Eden story is unhelpful for your side in this debate.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
While that’s what the media have been saying, and what many individuals within the Church have been saying, that’s not the Church of England’s argument. The Archbishops have been clear; ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ are at best happy byproducts of what, for the Church, is an issue of theological anthropology and sacramental theology.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
I agree with the several posters who have said that this is just a consequence of ordaining women as priests.
The real arguments happened twenty and thirty years ago, and the pro-ordination crowd won. Note that these were not just “feminists” and “liberals”, etc., but also conservatives and evangelicals. There are many Anglicans who acknowledge the primacy of scripture and who also think that scripture calls for ordination of women.
Once that bridge had been crossed there was no stopping the ordination of women as bishops.
The impact on RC - Anglican dialog was also felt 20 years ago.
This isn’t such a big development. The only people who will make much of it are those who wanted it, who will proclaim it as a major step forward for women and the Anglican Church.
The real arguments happened twenty and thirty years ago, and the pro-ordination crowd won. Note that these were not just “feminists” and “liberals”, etc., but also conservatives and evangelicals. There are many Anglicans who acknowledge the primacy of scripture and who also think that scripture calls for ordination of women.
Once that bridge had been crossed there was no stopping the ordination of women as bishops.
The impact on RC - Anglican dialog was also felt 20 years ago.
This isn’t such a big development. The only people who will make much of it are those who wanted it, who will proclaim it as a major step forward for women and the Anglican Church.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
For goodness sake, actually defend these assertions!
In particular:
- How are physical fatherhood and the priesthood intrinsically linked?
- How are physical motherhood and the Church intrinsically linked?
- If both are true, yet men can be members of the Church, why can’t it also be the case that women can be members of the priesthood? There seems an obvious equivalence here.
S
SteveVH
Guest
:blackeye: Wow. I missed that one the first time around. I understand the position very well, Edwin, and it makes me sick. Sorry you were so offended.
- Status