B
billsannie
Guest
I don’t see where either has been discarded. As for 1 Corinthians 12, it only addresses the parts of the Mystical Body, not which gender these parts should be.
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
It sounds like St. Paul’s important point is missed. Thank you for trying.
B
billsannie
Guest
Meaning, what?It sounds like St. Paul’s important point is missed. Thank you for trying.
W
worldwideweary
Guest
If you are questioning canon law and the defined limits (for example, one must be like a child, yet children can’t be ordained under a certain age), you probably won’t get satisfaction by asking for opinions on an Internet forum. The fact that you are asking the question rather than praying for grace is indicative, but that sounds rude of me I suppose (I myself have a smorgasbord of questions to pose on here
). As other people have advised on other issues, you might benefit from speaking to your local priest or diocesan bishop to work out your issues.And remember: Roma locuta; causa finita est.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Great find! Butler mentions, in a footnote, that the paper outlines the arguments in her book…!
R
Rau
Guest
Easily? Sure. The future encycyclical will simply start off with something like: “The statement by Pope JPII that the Church has no authority to ordain women …(and all the equivalent statements by Popes prior to him, and the consistent Tradition of the Church)…” was an error. In fact…the Church does have authority…
Easy. All done.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I would disagree. I think that those who wish the discussion to remain unsettled have presented precisely that assertion… but it’s not terribly convincing. JPII clearly wished the question to be settled, and used the language of doctrinal proclamation to do so.
Umm… no offense intended, but… have you actually read Butler’s book? If not, then I’d recommend you read the paper by Butler that Sudy linked for us. She explicitly asserts that she’s not doing what you say she’s doing.
Please read Butler’s article – I’d be interested in reading your response to it.
W
worldwideweary
Guest
Also remember the story of St. Francis of Assisi.
Why didn’t he become a priest?
Story goes that it was out of his humility, and yet there are parishes named after him.
Why didn’t he become a priest?
Story goes that it was out of his humility, and yet there are parishes named after him.
G
grannymh
Guest
That is true. However, St. Paul’s readers would understand that Christ’s Community includes both males and females. For now, please put aside the treatment of females. The reality is that both males and females are included in Genesis 1: 27
27
God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* He created them.
Good heavens! I just read my very old bible’s introduction to the first letter to the Corinthians. St. Paul’s beloved people are falling off the track. No wonder St. Paul is upset. As we read St. Paul’s letter, we find that one underneath problem is the sin of pride which can cause all kinds of misunderstandings in a community, then and now.
The beginning of 1 Corinthians 12 lists nine classical gifts which are considered ministry gifts given by the Holy Spirit for the building up of the Church.
The following verses are from 1 Corinthians, chapter 12.
usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/12
Here is St. Paul’s introduction to these nine very special, very unique gifts.
4*
There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit;
5
there are different forms of service but the same Lord;
6
there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone.
7
To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit.
The reason gender is not included in St. Paul’s list of particular nine gifts is because God Himself is primary. St. Paul is not stupid about the future of the Catholic Church; therefore, he does not limit the Holy Spirit to his own current culture regarding women.
11
But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as He wishes.
“As He wishes” is a mouthful.
We will take a break here so that comments and questions can be presented.
S
simpleas
Guest
So not to assume anything, can I ask why you brought the sin of pride up?That is true. However, St. Paul’s readers would understand that Christ’s Community includes both males and females. For now, please put aside the treatment of females. The reality is that both males and females are included in Genesis 1: 27
27
God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* He created them.
Good heavens! I just read my very old bible’s introduction to the first letter to the Corinthians. St. Paul’s beloved people are falling off the track. No wonder St. Paul is upset. As we read St. Paul’s letter, we find that one underneath problem is the sin of pride which can cause all kinds of misunderstandings in a community, then and now.
The beginning of 1 Corinthians 12 lists nine classical gifts which are considered ministry gifts given by the Holy Spirit for the building up of the Church.
The following verses are from 1 Corinthians, chapter 12.
usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/12
Here is St. Paul’s introduction to these nine very special, very unique gifts.
4*
There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit;
5
there are different forms of service but the same Lord;
6
there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone.
7
To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit.
The reason gender is not included in St. Paul’s list of particular nine gifts is because God Himself is primary. St. Paul is not stupid about the future of the Catholic Church; therefore, he does not limit the Holy Spirit to his own current culture regarding women.
11
But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as He wishes.
“As He wishes” is a mouthful.
We will take a break here so that comments and questions can be presented.
Thanks.
G
grannymh
Guest
1Corinthians, chapter 12
usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/12
14
Now the body is not a single part, but many.
15
If a foot should say, “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
16
Or if an ear should say, “Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
Apparently, some members of the Corinth community had arranged the Holy Spirit gifts according to some standard of a higher calling. Pride in having certain gifts followed. Apparently pride was so strong that it made the foot and ear feel that they did not belong. Today, there are some women who feel that they do not belong. Today, it appears that there is a longing to be equally proud so that some women seek the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders which is the “hand” and “eye” of St. Paul’s observation.
Today, both women and men need to accept the teachings of St. Paul in 1Corinthians, chapter 12.
4
There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit;
5
there are different forms of service but the same Lord;
6
there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone.
7
To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit.
In real life pride has many forms. Sometimes, it is pride in a job, etc. But when a particular job excludes women because they are women, then women feel the opposite of pride.
What is unique is that pride does not have to come from being a certain kind of a person. It can come from the job. For example, the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders. Some women may say that they have the right to be equally proud of how they serve others.
It does not matter to me if no one agrees with this version of pride.
S
sudy
Guest
I don’t mean to criticize
I just wanted to add that pride is the root cause of envy …at least the way I see it.
G
grannymh
Guest
I agree. Thank you for that observation.I don’t mean to criticize
G
grannymh
Guest
The answer to the question – Is ontological change limited to the male human being? – is that common sense would answer that ontological change, which enables, is unlimited.
bustedhalo.com/questionbox/can-you-explain-what-happens-at-ordination-when-the-ontological-change-happens
link to CCC in above link.
**CCC1583 **It is true that someone validly ordained can, for grave reasons, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense, because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. The vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.
B
billsannie
Guest
I’ve just finished reading it. It’s very well written, but imho, not very convincing.I would disagree. I think that those who wish the discussion to remain unsettled have presented precisely that assertion… but it’s not terribly convincing. JPII clearly wished the question to be settled, and used the language of doctrinal proclamation to do so.
Umm… no offense intended, but… have you actually read Butler’s book? If not, then I’d recommend you read the paper by Butler that Sudy linked for us. She explicitly asserts that she’s not doing what you say she’s doing.
Please read Butler’s article – I’d be interested in reading your response to it.
I’ve got notes on just about every point she made, but to save space I’ll only address here what she calls the “fundamental reasons” - the Magisterium’s starting point in their objections to womens’ ordination. Basically itboils down to two points: 1. the Lord chose only men for the Twelve; and 2. we’ve always done it that way. As for the first, many Biblical scholars question whether Christ even intended to found a Church at all. That would include a priesthood. They have some pretty good arguments to back that up. But even putting that aside, there are still some problems. Jesus never stated His reasons for choosing men. There are other likely reasons why He might have chosen men without intending it to be a permanent thing.
As Butler herself acknowledges, men in Jesus’ time likely wouldn’t listen to women as they proclaimed His word. Butler tries to deal with this by stating that Christ treated women more equally, so if He had meant women to be priests, He would have made them Apostles. The problem with this is, Jesus meant for the Twelve to not only baptize people but to spread His word. He listened to women, but other men likely wouldn’t. This doesn’t apply to our time or culture.
The other question is one of safety. As we hear in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, travel in those times was very dangerous. Without modern weaponry, self-defense depended mostly on brute force. The Apostles were called to travel far and wide. Travelling with another woman or only one man, a woman would be in serious danger. Certainly many Christians are called to martyrdom, but unnecessarily death is another thing. This problem rarely applies to priests today.
Also there are other important characteristics of the Apostles which the Magisterium has not chosen to make requirements of the priesthood. For example, the Apostles were all Jewish. As they were all circumcised, this was as much a part of their flesh, their very being as their maleness. Yet being neither Jewishness nor circumcision is required to belong to the Catholic priesthood. Also, except for Judas, who was considered a failure, they were working-class men with little formal learning. That is certainly not a requirement for the priesthood.
And for good measure there is St. Paul’s metaphor of the Bride and the Bridegroom. But this is a metaphor. The image has to do with great personal intimacy, not gender, and with Christ, not with the person of the priest. Indeed, if we were to take the gender symbolism to its logical conclusion, the congregation would have to be all female! And as far as being a metaphor for an intimate relationship, the modern male priest hardly conveys that idea. The image is rather one of sterile aloofness.
Regarding the rule of tradition, if that were consistently followed we would still have married clergy and the Latin Mass would never have existed. So that’s something of a hit-and-miss proposition, not a solid rule.
As for infallibility, the Magisterium has defined these rules and if they felt so moved, they could overthrow them.
If I have offended anyone by this, please forgive me. That is not my intention. I only wish to express my opinion and, perhaps, provide material for discussion.
S
sudy
Guest
Hi
I haven’t read your entire argument because I’m in a bit of a rush. I just wanted to respond to this point with Matthew 16:18.
B
billsannie
Guest
This part of the argument is, at best, highly controversial. It’s especially weak without use of these scholars’ explanatory material. That’s why I only gave it a passing reference.Hi
G
grannymh
Guest
It is sad to see how many, not all, modern Catholics apparently ignore simple truths found in the first three sacred chapters of Genesis. For example. What is the basic reason for Jesus Christ to assume a male human nature? Does anyone have the basic explanation?
G
grannymh
Guest
In addition, there is this question. What is the basic reason for a Catholic Sacrament?
And here is a wordsmith type question. Is ontological addition a better description for the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders?
Where is God?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I think your ultimate challenge is to try and convince your fellow discussion partner that the Church has ruled conclusively on the matter.
As you can lead a horse to the water, but you can’t make it drink - Good Luck.
The answer to the thread question as it pertains to priesthood is “Yes”. The issue is about as debatable for a Catholic as the existence of the trinity or the divinity of Christ - which is to say “it’s not debatable”.
- Status