Women as priests

[Brendan]

. You cannot isolate the bare magisterial statements from the cultural context for which there is so much evidence.

Why not?

Catholics understand that magisterial statement on the Sacraments are protected from error, then the cultural context is immaterial.

What I have not seen from you is any support for the position that God gave the Church the authority to ordain women.

The Church can only do what God gave it the authority to do. It can, for example, change wheat bread into Christ Himself, but it cannot transmute lead into gold or rice bread into Christ. It lacks the authority to do so.

The same is true for the ordination of women. We know from Christ’s own actions, that men may be ontologically changed to celebrate Mass. Where is the equal proof that women may so be ordained.

I understand that you, as an Anglican, only recognize the ontological mark of Baptism, and ordination is, in effect, a meaningless event ( theologically speaking).

Catholics do not hold to that, and never will. Holy Orders places a mark on the soul no less profound and life changing than Baptism itself.

 

[manualman]

Edwin,

As usual your posts are extremely well thought out and reasoned. I can understand clearly where you are arguing from.

But be careful. As a learned man, you are vulnerable to the temptations of learned men. Pride in one’s own ability to reason has been the downfall of many men of great intellect. No reply necessary, you are quite right that I have no great bit if wit at hand with which to respond to your actual post.

But discern carefully the possibility that the fact that the push for women’s ordination coincides with one of the most sexually confused times in the history of christendom. Coincidence? Perhaps not. Perhaps we simply have an extremely poor understanding of the extents of how human sexuality actually shapes our lives and our behaviors. Perhaps if we knew ourselves better, we’d see the reason Jesus did not make women into apostles.

you make an interesting comparison with slavery. But there IS a rather important distinction. Jesus never owned a slave. He DID choose 12 apostles - all male. There IS a moral difference between chosing not to confront an observed moral evil at a particular time and PARTICIPATING in one. That is an important distinction I think you sidestepped.

 

[clmowry]

and that women cannot hold any position that involves “principatus” (i.e., leadership or authority).

Isn’t this a “biblical” issue, not a “Catholic” issue?

1 Timothy Chapter 2:11-15

“A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

Chuck

 

[mikew262]

Isn’t this a “biblical” issue, not a “Catholic” issue?

1 Timothy Chapter 2:11-15

“A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

Chuck

Nothing new in this. This was the culture of the time and how women were already being treated.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

As usual, that is the bottom line. Who is the authority in these matters?

And where no authority is acknowledged, one ends up in, literally, an “anything goes” situation. The same word gets used, but it is effectively given a different meaning.

Most proponents of women priests – even heretical Catholics – make their arguments from the assumption that to be a priest is to be designated to perform certain functions. Now on the surface, that looks OK, and if that’s all there is to it, then perhaps there’s some validity to arguments that claim that either men or women can perform the functions.

But when, authoritatively, it is established that the functions do not define what it is to be a priest, but merely go along with accepting the call to priesthood, the arguments become irrelevant.

The authority of the Magisterium of our Holy Mother the Church is simply not an optional extra. It’s an absolute necessity – and literally, a Godsent.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Steve40]

Pretty extreme view IMO.

Taking someone into your body is pretty extreme. It doesn’t get any more intimate than that. The thing to remember is that we are made in the likeness and image of God and not vice versa. Our sometimes perverted view of sex distorts this image. If recieving the Eucharist is that which sexual intercourse images, then we should pay attention to the sex of the one who concecrates.

 

[fix]

And where no authority is acknowledged, one ends up in, literally, an “anything goes” situation. The same word gets used, but it is effectively given a different meaning.

Most proponents of women priests – even heretical Catholics – make their arguments from the assumption that to be a priest is to be designated to perform certain functions. Now on the surface, that looks OK, and if that’s all there is to it, then perhaps there’s some validity to arguments that claim that either men or women can perform the functions.

But when, authoritatively, it is established that the functions do not define what it is to be a priest, but merely go along with accepting the call to priesthood, the arguments become irrelevant.

The authority of the Magisterium of our Holy Mother the Church is simply not an optional extra. It’s an absolute necessity – and literally, a Godsent.

Blessings,

Gerry

It seems every argument I read in favor of priestesses is based on an “authority” other than the Church. I cannot accept that premise. In fact, such a premise really is based on each person being their own authority.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

To say that something or someone is “not valid matter” for a sacrament is a theological, not merely an aesthetic judgment.

On the question of women being valid matter for the sacrament of ordination, I would refer interested parties to the legend of St. Brigit of Kildare who unexpectedly received from her bishop (Mel, I believe) episcopal consecration. When asked to rescind it, Mel apparently responded something like: It wasn’t me. God did it. And it’s done.

While subsequent abbesses following Brigit were not given episcopal ordination, they traditionally received episcopal dignity due to the precedent Brigit set.

To me, that settles the issue with regard to valid matter and the sacrament.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[manualman]

Grace & Peace!

On the question of women being valid matter for the sacrament of ordination, I would refer interested parties to the legend of St. Brigit of Kildare who unexpectedly received from her bishop (Mel, I believe) episcopal consecration. When asked to rescind it, Mel apparently responded something like: It wasn’t me. God did it. And it’s done.

While subsequent abbesses following Brigit were not given episcopal ordination, they traditionally received episcopal dignity due to the precedent Brigit set.

To me, that settles the issue with regard to valid matter and the sacrament.

Story I heard was that it was Saint Patrick himself. But you realize this is unsubstantiated popular myth, right? That SETTLES it for you? Hope you haven’t read the DiVinci Code then…

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

It seems every argument I read in favor of priestesses is based on an “authority” other than the Church. I cannot accept that premise. In fact, such a premise really is based on each person being their own authority.

In citing “each person being their own authority,” you have encapsulated the essence of Protestantism. And the other authorities almost always have, at their root, an anti-Christian (and therefore virulently anti-Catholic) bias, even though some claiming Christian identity cite them. (How’s that for a paradox?)

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Grace & Peace!

On the question of women being valid matter for the sacrament of ordination, I would refer interested parties to the legend of St. Brigit of Kildare who unexpectedly received from her bishop (Mel, I believe) episcopal consecration. …

To me, that settles the issue with regard to valid matter and the sacrament.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Happily, the Church relies on more than legend.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[fix]

Grace & Peace!

On the question of women being valid matter for the sacrament of ordination, I would refer interested parties to the legend of St. Brigit of Kildare who unexpectedly received from her bishop (Mel, I believe) episcopal consecration. When asked to rescind it, Mel apparently responded something like: It wasn’t me. God did it. And it’s done.

While subsequent abbesses following Brigit were not given episcopal ordination, they traditionally received episcopal dignity due to the precedent Brigit set.

To me, that settles the issue with regard to valid matter and the sacrament.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Thank you for proving my point about authentic authority.

 

[maryj]

I like the Eucharistic sexual explaination. Sex is an image of us recieving Christ into us in the Eucharist to give us new life. We the Church are faminine to Christ and the Priest is in the Person of Christ. Therefore a women priest would be a sign of homosexual sex not the total self giving sex between husband and wife.

Steve40, spot on!!!
“Blessed is the fruit of thy womb”
Jesus is the fruit of the womb. Here is the best explanation I have read, and I have read oh so many. lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=147
It isn’t about a culture, it is about Scripture, and what it has to say. Please read. God Bless.

 

[Steve40]

Steve40, spot on!!!
“Blessed is the fruit of thy womb”
Jesus is the fruit of the womb. Here is the best explanation I have read, and I have read oh so many. lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=147
It isn’t about a culture, it is about Scripture, and what it has to say. Please read. God Bless.

Thanks, good article.

Steve

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

…you realize this is unsubstantiated popular myth, right? That SETTLES it for you? Hope you haven’t read the DiVinci Code then…

Gerry Hunter:

Happily, the Church relies on more than legend.

fix:

Thank you for proving my point about authentic authority.

I mentioned Brigit’s example as a traditional counter to the view which would see women as invalid matter for the sacrament of ordination. That was all. It is not a particularly compelling argument for women’s ordination generally. But insofar as the legends of the saints reveal a traditional understanding of the faith, I find it fascinating that the question of valid matter was not an issue in the legend of Brigit: the legend illustrates that according to the traditional mind of the church, women are worthy of sacramental ordination. Whether or not ordination is appropriate is not addressed. I happen to believe that it is appropriate, but what the legend settles for me is the issue of the worthiness of women to receive a sacrament. I take the legend as authoritative insofar as it represents an expression of the traditional mindset (though perhaps not the traditional doctrine) of the church.

I think it is possible to make such a distinction and for such a distinction to be meaningful. You obviously disagree. What would you propose is the purpose of the legends of the saints? Are the legends of the saints not meant to instruct us on the way to holiness? And is not holiness more than doctrine, more than dogma, more than following the letter of the law, but also acquiring a mind of holiness? And is that mind not revealed, at least in part, through the legends of the saints so that we can learn to recognize it and cherish it?

Or are the legends just largely useless funny stories we like to tell ourselves?

Manualman, you used the words “unsubstantiated popular myth” as if tradition is meant to reveal fact as opposed to truth, as if truth cannot be generally known, and as if a myth cannot be an expression of truth. There is, in fact, a difference between a myth, a rumor, a conjecture, and a fabrication. In a recent discussion, it looked like Fix was telling me that I was suggesting that a symbol was a species of unreality, or something you would preface with the word “mere”. Not so. A symbol is never a mere anything, but always stands in for and represents a reality which transcends it in order to allow us to interact with or comprehend that reality. So too a myth. A symbol is more real than your breakfast. A myth is more truthful (though not necessarily more factual) than the daily news.

Gerry, as is hopefully clear from the above, I don’t suggest that the legends of the saints are the sole source of revelation to the church. My understanding (perhaps I’m deceived?) is that the legends are expressions of the traditions or the traditional mind of the church. They are a rich part of our Christian heritage. Am I wrong?

Fix, I will confess that I find dialogue with you incredibly frustrating. As such, I wouldn’t know where to begin with your comment in a way which would allow you to see or understand my point of view. I suspect it’s not particularly important for you to understand the points of view of the people with whom you disagree. And that’s fine. I wish you well.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[fix]

Fix, I will confess that I find dialogue with you incredibly frustrating. As such, I wouldn’t know where to begin with your comment in a way which would allow you to see or understand my point of view. I suspect it’s not particularly important for you to understand the points of view of the people with whom you disagree. And that’s fine. I wish you well.

I understand your position. I am simply pointing out why such a position is inconsistent with the Catholic faith and why it is consistent with a type of relativisn which is so common today.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Gerry, as is hopefully clear from the above, I don’t suggest that the legends of the saints are the sole source of revelation to the church. My understanding (perhaps I’m deceived?) is that the legends are expressions of the traditions or the traditional mind of the church. They are a rich part of our Christian heritage. Am I wrong?

Unless the Magisterium has spoken on the matter, we have no more reason to think that legends relate to the mind of the Church than they do to superstition and old wives’ tales. On this subject, the Magisterium has spoken.

As for invalid matter, it’s a rather crude way of putting the issue, but the Latin in the Canon is “vir”, which means male human. And a woman is not that.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[master_catholic]

On the question of women being valid matter for the sacrament of ordination, I would refer interested parties to the legend of St. Brigit of Kildare who unexpectedly received from her bishop (Mel, I believe) episcopal consecration. When asked to rescind it, Mel apparently responded something like: It wasn’t me. God did it. And it’s done.

If this event that you describe didnt’ happen, then it makes no impact in our discussion other than it’s a neat “story” but not true history. Therefore it has no weight in advancing women’s ordination.

While subsequent abbesses following Brigit were not given episcopal ordination, they traditionally received episcopal dignity due to the precedent Brigit set.

They may have had great reverence given to them, by being the sisters in Brigit’s convent, but I’m sure the “episcopal dignity” was not given to them, precisely because Brigit was not given episcopal consecration. Even if (in an alternate universe) she were to be given episcopal consecration, it would never ever be valid valid, as God will always be God.

To me, that settles the issue with regard to valid matter and the sacrament.

The DiVinci Code “settles” it for many people about their view of the church in general. The lengths people will go to, to believe anything they want. Sheesh.

If it’s just myth, then it didn’t happen, so why should it have any significance for you? Scientists are not content with “myth” but want actual substance - somthing they know is true, and not merely populized by human fantasy. That’s what people who know logic want to build their argument from, actual fact, not myth.

 

[manualman]

Grace & Peace!

Manualman, you used the words “unsubstantiated popular myth” as if tradition is meant to reveal fact as opposed to truth, as if truth cannot be generally known, and as if a myth cannot be an expression of truth. There is, in fact, a difference between a myth, a rumor, a conjecture, and a fabrication. In a recent discussion, it looked like Fix was telling me that I was suggesting that a symbol was a species of unreality, or something you would preface with the word “mere”. Not so. A symbol is never a mere anything, but always stands in for and represents a reality which transcends it in order to allow us to interact with or comprehend that reality. So too a myth. A symbol is more real than your breakfast. A myth is more truthful (though not necessarily more factual) than the daily news.

And this is why I didn’t use the word ‘myth’ alone. Note that I added the descriptor “unsubstatiated popular.” This is the exact reason the church so rigorously investigates alleged visions and those thought to be saints before concurring. Humans have an enormous capacity to embellish when they get excited. You know the difference between tradition and Tradition, I assume? The story can indeed hold meaning as a myth. But not the meaning you wish for it. To me, it rings of the kind of embellishment people put into a story to accentuate the importance of the hero. But that doesn’t make it factual history. The reason nobody bothered to critique it to death at the time is that nobody SERIOUSLY contemplated the possibility of ordination for women. It simply didn’t warrant the attention at the time, because nobody was pushing that agenda.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The DiVinci Code “settles” it for many people about their view of the church in general. The lengths people will go to, to believe anything they want. Sheesh.

If it’s just myth, then it didn’t happen, so why should it have any significance for you? Scientists are not content with “myth” but want actual substance - somthing they know is true, and not merely populized by human fantasy. That’s what people who know logic want to build their argument from, actual fact, not myth.

I’m always quietly amazed at the lengths relgious people will go to try to prove to themselves and to others that their beliefs are scientific, factually accurate, historically relevant, materially demonstrable, and beyond academic dispute. What religion are you that factual “proof” forms the bedrock of your faith? If the domain of your religion does not extend beyond what the world can prove, what good is it? Fix’s answer to this conundrum is so much more convincing–the magisterium says so, therefore I believe it. In the realm of the spirit, science provides a light, sure, but faith makes the darkness burn brighter.

I suppose all this is the negative inheritance of the Enlightenment rearing its ugly head in the church–our religion must be scientifically reasonable. But it’s this sort of materialistic impulse which reduces scripture to a history textbook, the gospel to a down home “instruction manual” and leads people to believe that the search for the “historical Jesus” is somehow worthwhile outside purely theoretical or academic circles. In short, the “historical Jesus” is the comfort of the faithless. It lets us say, “I can prove it!” Which is less meaningful, ultimately, than “I can LIVE it!” This is also the problem with the Da Vinci code theories–it makes a religion out of conjectural history (which, as some have said, is merely “fiction with footnotes”) rather than allows religion to redeem history. The historical Jesus and the Da Vinci code are ultimately children of the same worldview.

The Legends of the Saints, much like the Scriptures (though of course lacking in the authority of scripture) are not history lessons. They are spiritual texts. And they reveal something of the nature of the work of the Spirit in the world. Just because it may not be historically demonstrable, does that mean that the story of Francis and the wolf is untrue, that it reveals only lies and falsehoods? No. Quite the contrary. Do you believe that the Assumption of Our Lady is true because it is historical, or because it is, simply, true?

Who says a myth has to be demonstrably factual in order to be true? Do you also confuse journalism with art? Does the nightly news carry the same resonance for you as the book of Acts? When you read the instructions on how to operate your blender, are you put in mind of Proverbs, because ultimately they have the same functional use-value to you? Does the fact that I brushed my teeth this morning mean as much or more to you as the truth that the Blessed Virgin is the Eighth Day of Creation? I would hope that the answer to all these questions is “no.” Because a fact is not as meaningful as truth. And it’s a travesty to confuse the two.

I’ll quote what I wrote to manulaman above:Manualman, you used the words “unsubstantiated popular myth” as if tradition is meant to reveal fact as opposed to truth, as if truth cannot be generally known, and as if a myth cannot be an expression of truth. There is, in fact, a difference between a myth, a rumor, a conjecture, and a fabrication. …A symbol … always stands in for and represents a reality which transcends it in order to allow us to interact with or comprehend that reality. So too a myth. A symbol is more real than your breakfast. A myth is more truthful (though not necessarily more factual) than the daily news.
Your real argument involves authority. I think you should take your cue from Gerry and Fix and locate your source of authority with the magisterium, and not with science. You’ll be on surer footing. Science, history, literary genre have nothing to do with whether or not the Legends of the Saints are authoritative. I happen to believe that while they are not in themselves authoritative, that they nonetheless reveal to us aspects of our tradition, and insofar as they do that, they carry some authority. Gerry and Fix would be more likely to agree with me if the magisterium were more explicit. It is not. They don’t agree. Still, I would imagine that they would be hard pressed to deny that the Legends had no value at all–but my argument is that the value they have derives from their relationship to tradition, and that that bears some measure of authority. But then Gerry and Fix are Roman Catholic and I’m Anglo-Catholic: we have differences regarding where we locate authority. So there you are.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!