- Status
P
poche
Guest
Cardinal Willibrands may have been convinced but Pope St John Paul II was not convinced.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
You are mistaken again, I’m afraid. Cardinal Willebrands was not convinced, and he opposed the theological arguments conveyed by the archbishop with theological arguments of his own.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Almost anything can benefit from intelligent help. This article on Deaconesses is pretty comprehensive, and has obviously had quite a bit of “intelligent help.”
Be prepared to back up your position! Just citing Martimort or other Catholic scholars will not be enough. One article I looked at had footnotes that point out deficiencies in some of those texts and he scholarship behind them. So expect to be challenged if you post what has already been looked at and been dismissed.
D
dochawk
Guest
I shudder at the thought of even dipping toes in there . . .
That topic is a problem even on the byzcath,.org forums, let alone here. The basic problem is folks exercising willful ignorance and insisting on the word itself, or the form of consecration/dedication/ordination in one church (there is one that uses a laying of hands and is similar, but not the same, as diaconal ordination).
It just isn’t an issue where the proponents of female ordination will accept clear and overwhelming evidence of their error. They remind me of the old joke about the lady praying in church to whom Jesus spoke, who told Him to pipe down because she’s talking to his Mother . . .
hawk
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Wiki articles are based only on sources, not original research.
They’re supposed to be balanced.
Of course this gets into a problem when someone insists that certain scholarship is wrong / discredited, but unless he has a source to quote saying the source is questionable, he can’t just put his own judgment on it into an article.
I agree with you it can get very hairy.
I have cleaned up a few articles with wrong facts regarding beatification or apparitions, but I skip most of the hot-button stuff.
They’re supposed to be balanced.
Of course this gets into a problem when someone insists that certain scholarship is wrong / discredited, but unless he has a source to quote saying the source is questionable, he can’t just put his own judgment on it into an article.
I agree with you it can get very hairy.
I have cleaned up a few articles with wrong facts regarding beatification or apparitions, but I skip most of the hot-button stuff.
D
Dovekin
Guest
I have never seen anything approaching “clear and overwhelming evidence” on any position regarding the ordination of women. The only thing that is clear is that John Paul II taught that the Church is not authorized to ordain women to the priesthood. I think that is to be taken on faith, not evidence, but I could be wrong.
What is unfortunate is the accusations of “willful ignorance” and the like, which are hurled at both sides. Conversation should be possible tp discuss evidence without prejudging, leaving ourselves open to the truth that will be found. If we trust that the Holy Spirit helped JP2, we should not be afraid of contradiction.
H
Hodos
Guest
I think you ask a very relevant question in this day and age. To my knowledge, the primary place where this is addressed to the Church is in 1 Timothy when the offices of bishop (overseer) and deacon are addressed. But turn first to 1 Timothy 2, which leads up to Paul’s description of the two major ecclesiastical offices.
“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”
When discussing the differences in women’s roles in the Church, Paul goes all the way back to creation and the fall in Genesis. So what do we see in Genesis?
Well, in Genesis 1 we see that God created man and woman and blessed them, giving them the specific command to be fruitful and multiply and subdue it. He then blesses the creation calling it very good. Right here, through the gift of the sexes, we see a complementarian relationship between man and woman, who have differing roles that were created for specific purpose, to bring glory to God’s creation. While these roles are different, they are meant to work together to accomplish God’s purpose.
In Genesis 2, we get a telescoping view of this specific act of creation, which Paul references in 1 Timothy. God creates man from the dust of the earth and gives him specific work to do (cultivating the garden, and keeping his command with regard to not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). God then states his desire that man not be alone, that he will create a helper suitable for him. It is here that God creates Eve from Adam’s rib. Here we see a head and helper relationship created at the outset of the creation of man. This was God’s will for how they were to act in God’s image to creation.
(To Be Continued…)
“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”
When discussing the differences in women’s roles in the Church, Paul goes all the way back to creation and the fall in Genesis. So what do we see in Genesis?
Well, in Genesis 1 we see that God created man and woman and blessed them, giving them the specific command to be fruitful and multiply and subdue it. He then blesses the creation calling it very good. Right here, through the gift of the sexes, we see a complementarian relationship between man and woman, who have differing roles that were created for specific purpose, to bring glory to God’s creation. While these roles are different, they are meant to work together to accomplish God’s purpose.
In Genesis 2, we get a telescoping view of this specific act of creation, which Paul references in 1 Timothy. God creates man from the dust of the earth and gives him specific work to do (cultivating the garden, and keeping his command with regard to not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). God then states his desire that man not be alone, that he will create a helper suitable for him. It is here that God creates Eve from Adam’s rib. Here we see a head and helper relationship created at the outset of the creation of man. This was God’s will for how they were to act in God’s image to creation.
(To Be Continued…)
H
Hodos
Guest
In Genesis 3 however, we see the fall. The story goes that the serpent seduces Eve, and Eve eats of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and gives some of the fruit to Adam who was with her. When God then gives out the curses, so we get a chain reaction serpent, Eve, Adam. God’s intended order at the creation was the man would subdue the earth and rule over it, and that that Eve would be his helper in this. So it should be Adam, Eve, creature in how the created order is intended to function. In the Fall, we see the opposite. The creation tempts Eve, Eve gives of the fruit to Adam, who receives it willingly although God had communicated his will concerning the fruit to Adam. Original sin has already thrown all of God’s created order out of whack.
When delivering the curses, God addresses them in the reverse order of his creation, creature (serpent), Eve, Adam, with increasing seriousness of the curses, ultimately holding Adam responsible for the failure. The serpent is cursed above all created animals. Eve is cursed in that she will deliver babies (her unique role and blessing) in pain. And Adam is cursed last because he listened to the voice of his wife over and above God’s command. The ground is cursed on account of Adam (his unique role to rule over and subdue creation), and in painful toil will the ground produce for him, and ultimately God confirms that mankind will return to the dust from which he was created by death. Adam is ultimately responsible for the failure of original sin. In Romans 5, Paul affirms this as well.
One other note here. There is an interesting statement in Eve’s curse. “Your desire will be for your husband, but he will rule over you.” The Hebrew word desire here is interesting. It is used in only one other place, Genesis 4, when God is speaking to Cain who is angry with his brother Abel. It says, “And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. It’s desire is for you, but you must master it.” In other words, it is a word used in the context of the wrongful desire to usurp or master something that is not rightly given by God. In other words, as part of the curse of original sin, there will be friction between man and woman, where there is a desire to usurp the headship that God ordained in the very act of creation. This isn’t a good thing.
So when Paul addresses this, what he is trying to do is uphold God’s intended order and creation. We see this throughout the Old Testament, that the Biblical norm for leadership within the Church reflects this, and it continues to Paul’s day. He doesn’t want the Church to subvert that, which is why the Church today ordains men to the priestly offices that exercise spiritual authority over the Church.
An grammatical and historical argument can be made for the role of deaconess, which is an office of service to the Church. But this role needs to still uphold God’s order when describing the functions and limits of that office.
I hope this helps.
When delivering the curses, God addresses them in the reverse order of his creation, creature (serpent), Eve, Adam, with increasing seriousness of the curses, ultimately holding Adam responsible for the failure. The serpent is cursed above all created animals. Eve is cursed in that she will deliver babies (her unique role and blessing) in pain. And Adam is cursed last because he listened to the voice of his wife over and above God’s command. The ground is cursed on account of Adam (his unique role to rule over and subdue creation), and in painful toil will the ground produce for him, and ultimately God confirms that mankind will return to the dust from which he was created by death. Adam is ultimately responsible for the failure of original sin. In Romans 5, Paul affirms this as well.
One other note here. There is an interesting statement in Eve’s curse. “Your desire will be for your husband, but he will rule over you.” The Hebrew word desire here is interesting. It is used in only one other place, Genesis 4, when God is speaking to Cain who is angry with his brother Abel. It says, “And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. It’s desire is for you, but you must master it.” In other words, it is a word used in the context of the wrongful desire to usurp or master something that is not rightly given by God. In other words, as part of the curse of original sin, there will be friction between man and woman, where there is a desire to usurp the headship that God ordained in the very act of creation. This isn’t a good thing.
So when Paul addresses this, what he is trying to do is uphold God’s intended order and creation. We see this throughout the Old Testament, that the Biblical norm for leadership within the Church reflects this, and it continues to Paul’s day. He doesn’t want the Church to subvert that, which is why the Church today ordains men to the priestly offices that exercise spiritual authority over the Church.
An grammatical and historical argument can be made for the role of deaconess, which is an office of service to the Church. But this role needs to still uphold God’s order when describing the functions and limits of that office.
I hope this helps.
H
Hodos
Guest
Last comment, while I agree that many women have positive traits that could make them effective leaders, this is beside the point. These roles were addressed to men. I might be intelligent and tough and fit, I could make a great police officer. But I was not appointed the authority to be one. So if I go out and try to engage in vigilantism, even though I might be suited physically and intellectually to do the job, I would still be wrong in usurping that role for myself. That role is to be enacted by those to whom it has been appointed. Same kind of thing here. That being said, women have much to offer the Church and do already. My wife for example teaches catechism, which is a proper exercise for her.
W
WingsOfEagles
Guest
Priests act in persona christe (in the person of Christ). Christ was clearly a man as is God. Women serve other leadership roles in the Church. Our Holy Mother, Mary, was clearly a leader in the formation of Christianity, but her role was different than the apostles. Nuns are considered Brides of Christ.
E
edward_george1
Guest
Jesus Christ was definitely a man. Fully God and fully man. Not half and half, not a mix of the two, but fully God and fully man.
But “as is God” is not really correct. God is not a man, God is God. God became man in the created humanity of Jesus Christ, but it is not correct to say God is a man, even if you’re talking about God the Father. The Father reveals himself using masculine language and masculine imagery, but is in essence neither male or female. To use masculine terms to describe God is to do so by analogy, since our minds cannot comprehend the nature of God in himself. There are also places where Scripture uses feminine terminology to describe God and his actions.
This is why we say that our sexuality is a reflection of God’s creative power–man and woman are incomplete of themselves, and must come together in a complimentary union in order complete what they of themselves lack for the procreation of children. God can create ex nihilo and totally of himself, without any other matter or person being involved. Man procreates only when he comes together with woman and they complete one another’s incomplete capacity for creation.
-Fr ACEGC
GospelOfMatthew
New member
The 12 were all men and were ordained by Jesus as in effect priests, in that they could transubstantiate the Eucharist. No women were present. That’s how Jesus set it up. Doesn’t mean women are of any less value, Mary and Mary Magdalene followed the 12 everywhere and MM was the first to see Jesus had risen and she told the 12. It is just a different vocation that women fulfill and it isn’t the Priesthood
Last edited:
O
on_the_hill
Guest
For the most part, I don’t have a problem with that. What I disagree with is that the top decision making powers are vested solely in men. Set aside the fact that women hold leadership roles at many levels and in many ministries. The top of the mountain is inhabited by males only, and that is wrong.
GospelOfMatthew
New member
I don’t know how that could be changed though as “the top” is the Pope and Cardinals and Bishops which are by definition men
E
edwest
Guest
The Church is about God and spreading the Gospel. In this case, it’s not a human power struggle, it’s about the imitation of Christ. The Church is the Bride of Christ. And all ministries must operate in accordance with what God has shown and told us. Humility, not a desire for power, must be there. Without it, the Church might resemble a large corporation. It’s not. It was founded by Christ, not some random guy.
This obsessive “males only” or “male dominated” thinking reveals not a desire to serve God and others but a fictional and incorrect interpretation of what the Church actually is. It’s today’s cause - nothing more.
This obsessive “males only” or “male dominated” thinking reveals not a desire to serve God and others but a fictional and incorrect interpretation of what the Church actually is. It’s today’s cause - nothing more.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
The only reason that actually has any bearing on the issue is #3:
"we beleive the Church is infallible in regards to teaching faith and morals. "
The Church is simply fearful of what conservative Catholics would do if women became priests. The crutch of Jesus choosing only men is a red herring. Jesus NEVER said ONLY males can be priests. The fact is that historically women were considered inferior in Jewish, and picking males for anything wouldn’t have been considered. Now we know better, and many people want to change. But the fear is still too great.
"we beleive the Church is infallible in regards to teaching faith and morals. "
The Church is simply fearful of what conservative Catholics would do if women became priests. The crutch of Jesus choosing only men is a red herring. Jesus NEVER said ONLY males can be priests. The fact is that historically women were considered inferior in Jewish, and picking males for anything wouldn’t have been considered. Now we know better, and many people want to change. But the fear is still too great.
E
edwest
Guest
That is just not true. As God, Jesus Christ acted in a completely sovereign way. He did not conform to the situation in his time and place while on earth.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Should we trim away all scripture for which we can come up with such explanations? Anything that could be related to first century culture is now invalid?
- Status