G
Gnosis
Guest
No one has answered my question. If God is not a male deity, why is it wrong to refer to her as female?
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Well, Gnosis, I will try to answer your question.
First, we know that God is a spirit. We also know that God is Triune, that is Three Divine Persons in One. We also know that one of those, the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus the Christ, is a male human being, whose hypostatic union is that of 100% human and 100% God.
We ALSO know that the First Person of the Trinity is a FATHER. This is mentioned by Jesus Himself (and I think He should know best, should He not?) In fact, Jesus tells us to pray, “Our Father”.
So. . .while it is true that spirits are neither male nor female, in the sense that we humans (who ARE, EITHER, male or female), we are created in the image of God. That does not mean that God is somehow “feminine”, though. For a spirit, a “masculine” spirit (different from “male”) COULD combine both the procreative (male) and generative (female) attributes that we humans possess.
Meaning God is Father, masculine, yet combines the above properties. But, of course, He is God.
When God became Incarnate, He chose as part of the incarnation to have procreative powers, and He chose the Virgin Mary as the generative power, thus Mary is the Mother of Jesus, the Mother of God, and (as Eve , mother of humanity, should have been) she becomes mother of all of us, in Christ. The divine and the human are joined.
Therefore, it is, indeed “inappropriate” to label God as something He is not. He is not “feminine”, he is not “female”. And let me say, as a female myself, that I neither feel “oppressed” at thinking of God as My Father and My Creator, nor do I feel less “worthy” as a WOMAN–my, and indeed any human’s UNWORTHINESS is not wrapped up in our gender, but in our stubborn human PRIDE, arrogance and ignorance in attempting to make GOD into OUR 21st century notion of what we think should be “fair” or “equal”.
First, we know that God is a spirit. We also know that God is Triune, that is Three Divine Persons in One. We also know that one of those, the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus the Christ, is a male human being, whose hypostatic union is that of 100% human and 100% God.
We ALSO know that the First Person of the Trinity is a FATHER. This is mentioned by Jesus Himself (and I think He should know best, should He not?) In fact, Jesus tells us to pray, “Our Father”.
So. . .while it is true that spirits are neither male nor female, in the sense that we humans (who ARE, EITHER, male or female), we are created in the image of God. That does not mean that God is somehow “feminine”, though. For a spirit, a “masculine” spirit (different from “male”) COULD combine both the procreative (male) and generative (female) attributes that we humans possess.
Meaning God is Father, masculine, yet combines the above properties. But, of course, He is God.
When God became Incarnate, He chose as part of the incarnation to have procreative powers, and He chose the Virgin Mary as the generative power, thus Mary is the Mother of Jesus, the Mother of God, and (as Eve , mother of humanity, should have been) she becomes mother of all of us, in Christ. The divine and the human are joined.
Therefore, it is, indeed “inappropriate” to label God as something He is not. He is not “feminine”, he is not “female”. And let me say, as a female myself, that I neither feel “oppressed” at thinking of God as My Father and My Creator, nor do I feel less “worthy” as a WOMAN–my, and indeed any human’s UNWORTHINESS is not wrapped up in our gender, but in our stubborn human PRIDE, arrogance and ignorance in attempting to make GOD into OUR 21st century notion of what we think should be “fair” or “equal”.
G
Gnosis
Guest
I’m sorry, but you’re explanation does not really make sense. If God is neither male nor female, then calling him father is as inadaquate as calling him mother. For neither truly grasp what God is. This does not mean that these terms should not be used, but if some people can relate to God better as Mother than as Father, there should be no issue here.
M
MrS
Guest
okay…okay… call Him what you wish.
(but don’t be suprised if He doesn’t answer)
(but don’t be suprised if He doesn’t answer)
S
stanley123
Guest
I am just referriong to the news reports.
cathnews.com/news/510/5.php
cathnews.com/news/510/doc/4ncp.pdf
On reading these two press releases, what conclusion could any reasonable person draw, except that the case is not closed on the subject of women’s ordination, at least that is what the Catholic authorities in Australia seem to be indicating about it.
“As well as opening vocations to married men, the council, which represents about half the country’s Catholic clergy, has reopened debate on women priests, questioning whether their exclusion from the priesthood is as a result of divine direction.”
E
edward_george
Guest
How about this…
Mary, one of the wisest people in the whole Bible, said this at the wedding at Cana, talking about her son (John 2:5)…
**
His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.
**Now, Jesus instructed us thusly (Matthew 6:9):
Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
I think I’ll follow his mum’s advice and do what he told me…
-ACEGC
Mary, one of the wisest people in the whole Bible, said this at the wedding at Cana, talking about her son (John 2:5)…
**
His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.
**Now, Jesus instructed us thusly (Matthew 6:9):
Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
I think I’ll follow his mum’s advice and do what he told me…
-ACEGC
E
estesbob
Guest
They can debate it all they want. The Catholic Church is NOT a democracy. The male priesthood is settled Catholic Doctrine. It cant be changed. it is somewhat humorous to see you google up every instance you can find of some clergyman calling for woman to be ordained as if this were an election for alderman or something liked that. You need to learn how the Church works.
S
stanley123
Guest
It is not true that I made reference to some clergyman calling for woman to be ordained.
“As well as opening vocations to married men, the council, which represents about half the country’s Catholic clergy, has reopened debate on women priests, questioning whether their exclusion from the priesthood is as a result of divine direction.”
If the decision against women priests is infallible, why would half the Catholic clergy in Australia be calling for a reopening of the debate on women priests.
L
LittleDeb
Guest
I also find it interesting how those who believe that women could be priests, tend to dismiss important facts that do not line up with their theories.
For example: It has been said on this thread that priests are male only because that was the culture of the time in which Jesus arrived. I would pose questions based on that. Do you think it was an accident or chance that Jesus just happened to be born when He was? Do you think that he meant to come at a different time that would be more inclusive of women in the priesthood?
I would ask you to ask yourselves those questions. The answer to both is ‘no.’ Jesus came when He decided He would come. He is after all, God! He didn’t need to set up His Priesthood one way only to have it “updated” by some flawed humans later on. Clarification of constant and consistent teachings The Church has authority over. To change the priesthood to something God never intended–She (The Church) has no authority to do.
I am glad The Church has no authority to do so. Otherwise She would have no authority at all but to change with the way the wind blows. I know of a lot of groups who proclaim that they can infallibly interpret and have done this wind-blowing type of change.
For example: It has been said on this thread that priests are male only because that was the culture of the time in which Jesus arrived. I would pose questions based on that. Do you think it was an accident or chance that Jesus just happened to be born when He was? Do you think that he meant to come at a different time that would be more inclusive of women in the priesthood?
I would ask you to ask yourselves those questions. The answer to both is ‘no.’ Jesus came when He decided He would come. He is after all, God! He didn’t need to set up His Priesthood one way only to have it “updated” by some flawed humans later on. Clarification of constant and consistent teachings The Church has authority over. To change the priesthood to something God never intended–She (The Church) has no authority to do.
I am glad The Church has no authority to do so. Otherwise She would have no authority at all but to change with the way the wind blows. I know of a lot of groups who proclaim that they can infallibly interpret and have done this wind-blowing type of change.
M
masterjedi747
Guest
It’s not wrong, necessarily, but it’s less theologically correct. Jesus Christ, the second person of the Blessed Trinity (and a human male), referred to God as His “Father”. If that’s not good enough for you in and of itself, then consider some other things along with that. Since God created all things from himself, he is seen as a parent figure, and the role of “father” (life-giving) is naturally ascribed to Him. The word “Abba” is, in fact, more literally translated as “Daddy”. God the Father chose to have his only Son born through Mary, a woman. Christ took the Church to be His Bride (that’s why we refer to the Church in the femenine, and another reason why women cannot enter into the priesthood aka stand in the place of Christ the Bridegroom). God is also the one who hands out harsh punishments to the Jews in the Old Testament, being more stern and disciplinary. It just makes more sense in the end, that’s all.
However, you might be interested to know that I heard a very good and well-formed opinion (which I tend to agree with) that the Holy Spirit can, in fact, be seen as having more feminine attributes. The Holy Spirit is seen as being protective, grace-giving, nurturing…clearly roles that we identify more with women. The Holy Spirit is also closely associated with virtues such as Wisdom and Justice…virtues that are clearly and repeatedly referred to as femenine creatures in the Old Testament psalms (I believe it was straight from Solomon, but I wish I could remember the verses more specifically for you). It was a very interesting presentation.
All in all, I think it makes a very interesting case. God the Father is more masculine. The Holy Spirit is more femenine. Mary is the mother of the Son of God. Jesus Christ was born male, and takes the Mystical Body of the Church as His Bride. I think it’s pretty darn cool.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Why would you call God “Mother” when the Son of God referred to God as “Father”? Since Jesus was eternally begotten of God, He should know if it was of a Father or a Mother.
M
Mark_Marilyn
Guest
Wonderful! 
…it is such a treat, intellectually, to have such a tsunami of 90+ responses of such length, complexity, and perhaps some rationalizations as complex and subtle as can be…?
Alas!
We have fulltime jobs and family matters to attend to, but we’re reading – studying – each response and every word patiently and doggedly – that takes time. Please wait and try to be patient a little longer. 90+ responses to study, as you know…
Sorry you didn’t have a more positive image of poor old Rosemary. I didn’t realize she touched so many painful lesions in so many critics. Perhaps if I quoted others, such as Father Thomas Merton…? He would be more welcome if invoked, we trust? We need to also check EVERY Biblical reference and verse. There are many. Time and diligence are called for…
Truly yours, and may God bless and keep you all… Marilyn
…it is such a treat, intellectually, to have such a tsunami of 90+ responses of such length, complexity, and perhaps some rationalizations as complex and subtle as can be…?Alas!
We have fulltime jobs and family matters to attend to, but we’re reading – studying – each response and every word patiently and doggedly – that takes time. Please wait and try to be patient a little longer. 90+ responses to study, as you know…Sorry you didn’t have a more positive image of poor old Rosemary. I didn’t realize she touched so many painful lesions in so many critics. Perhaps if I quoted others, such as Father Thomas Merton…? He would be more welcome if invoked, we trust? We need to also check EVERY Biblical reference and verse. There are many. Time and diligence are called for…
Truly yours, and may God bless and keep you all… Marilyn
E
estesbob
Guest
Stanley:
They havent repopend the debate-their is no debate!!! It is SETTLED DOCTRINE I dont know how to make ir clearer than that.
B
Brendan
Guest
Stanley, during the height of the Arian heresy, over 80% of the clergy in the East denied the very divinity of Christ.
But it would seem by the logic presented in this article, that if over half the clergy on a country disagree, then the matter is open for debate.
If that was the case, the matter of the divinity of Christ would still have been an open issue for the Church for centuries after Nicea.
What seems to be issue here is the integrity of the instruction at Australian seminaries, not the teachings of the Church.
As you correctly stated, not all teachings of the Pope are infallible. But it was not a teaching of the Pope that was promulgated in *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis * was a infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, which are always infallible.
Notice also that O.S. was promulgated as an “Apostolic Letter” Letters are used when there there is no new teaching involved, as was the case here. JPII was stating no new matter of faith and morals, but one that the Church has definitely taught for it’s entire existence.
If the priests in Australia hadn’t learned about the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium while at the seminary or haven’t read Chapter III, para 25 of Lumen Gentium, that hardly constitutes a doctrinal debate on the part of the Church.
And as far as some theologians thinking that O.S. wasn’t an articulation of the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, I know some Catholic theologians who deny the Resurrection was a historical event. Does the fact that there are theologians who disagree with that mean the question is open for discussion?
E
estesbob
Guest
Mark & Marilyn:
Is there a point to this post?Wonderful!
Alas!
Sorry you didn’t have a more positive image of poor old Rosemary. I didn’t realize she touched so many painful lesions in so many critics. Perhaps if I quoted others, such as Father Thomas Merton…? He would be more welcome if invoked, we trust? We need to also check EVERY Biblical reference and verse. There are many. Time and diligence are called for…
Truly yours, and may God bless and keep you all… Marilyn
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Except, or course, the issue of obedience.
When Jesus Christ, God the Son, refers to “my FATHER and your FATHER”, and instruct his followers to pray “our FATHER”; when references to God as a Father begin with the prophets of the Old Testament, but there are never references to God the “Mother”, this issue looms very large, indeed.
Mind you, if Gnosis is truly a gnostic, then none of this will resonate at all, and in the end, that is as may be. The Church knows, and teaches that God knows better then humans what is good for them, not the other way around.
Gnostic heresy was identified and refuted in the letters of the New Testament. Its apparent continued presence need not be of great concern. It has nothing to contribute to the question of women in the priesthood of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, or any other questions pertinent to the content of the Deposit of the Faith. And if we want to consider the “inadequate”, then the disobedience advocated in how we address God is certainly a prime example of inadequacy.
Blessings,
Gerry
M
mlchance
Guest
There is a difference between something being debated and something being debatable. Are there people who debate whether women can be ordained priests? Certainly. Is the matter actually debatable, meaning the answer is uncertain? Certainly not.
– Mark L. Chance.
M
Melissa
Guest
Mark & Marilyn:
I think, though, that you are misunderstanding (and I hope not deliberately) the objection to the individual. It is not that she ‘touches painful lesions’ but that she gets core theological truths wrong, and as such, she cannot be expected to get secondary theological truths correct. It’s rather like expecting someone who doesn’t understand basic arithmetic to get calculus right.
E
estesbob
Guest
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Melissa, I think I can shed some light on the misunderstanding, having found an introductory post M&M put up in another forum.
(HERE)
In the post, Marilyn self-identifies her and her brother as “Roman Catholics, albeit leaning more toward Anglo-Catholics, with open minds toward liberal theology and allowing women as deacons.”
The term “Anglo-Catholic” designates not another type of Catholic, as, say, Byzantine Catholic, and other terms describing our Eastern Rite fellow Catholics, but a Protestant denomination. And of course, the Protestant understanding of both the Sacraments and the priesthood is vastly different from the revealed truth that the Church teaches.
Having worshipped for some years among the Anglicans myself, their understanding of “priesthood” is such that it is hard to deny that it, as they perceive it, can be made available to women. But when Anglicans talk about “priesthood”, they are talking about something that is not at all the same as what the Church offers in the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
I don’t want to go too far in this, because my purpose is definitely not to launch an ad hominem attack on M&M, but only to note that they are coming from a place that is certainly consistent with much to be found in Protestant Anglicanism, to which they have claimed an affinity. We should, as a primary duty, pray that they do not become terminally ensnared in it. I know first hand that Anglicans are “nice” people (and that some are faithful, valiant Christians, too), and some offer many tempting lures, whose hooks are baited with considerations predicated on “niceness”, rather than from the tenets of the Faith, including the issue of offering their version of “priesthood” to women.
Blessings,
Gerry
- Status