What Does the Church Say to This Argument for Women's Ordination?

[Credo in Deum]

2 hours ago, Maggyie said:

 

I think the comparison you use of parents and child is telling. Women are not "junior" members of humanity. You think that having a lesser judgement would be amesome and yet this would greatly harm women's dignity. In fact while men and women have DIFFERENT responsibilities, they are equally responsible. Nowhere in the Gospel does Jesus indicate that men are subject to a greater judgement.

 

I'm happy to oblige you

Sorry, I must have offended your pride again.  The example was not telling of anything, but to convey that God will judge based the level of authority one has been given. Because the mans role is greater, then his judgement will be greater.  The President of the United States will be judged with a greater strictness than a member of his cabinet. The Pope will be judged harsher than the local priest.  The office, authority, and level of responsibilities he has is what will make his judgement harsher than those who do not have them or are called to have them. 

"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness"--James 3:1"

The greater the responsibility the greater the judgement. 

 

[Maggyie]

26 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Sorry, I must have offended your pride again.  The example was not telling of anything, but to convey that God will judge based the level of authority one has been given. Because the mans role is greater, then his judgement will be greater.  The President of the United States will be judged with a greater strictness than a member of his cabinet. The Pope will be judged harsher than the local priest.  The office, authority, and level of responsibilities he has is what will make his judgement harsher than those who do not have them or are called to have them. 

"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness"--James 3:1"

The greater the responsibility the greater the judgement. 

 

Right Credo, and you have not established that men have a greater responsibility than women simply because they are men.  Let's look at the Scripture. More women than men are teachers (including catechists) does that mean they will be judged more strictly than men who don't teach? 

I am guessing this is a pet theory of yours and that you can't cite anywhere where the church actually teaches that women are junior varsity. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Way to deflect by accusing people who disagree with you of sin instead of engaging the core argument.

11 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

As the Bible says through ONE MAN sin entered he world. One Man. Eve is not charged with introducing sin into the world. No that blame is given to Adam since as the patriarch he was responsible for the entire world.  He f'd up his responsibilities and the entire world suffered for it.  His judgement, based on the level of his responsibilities, is greater than Eve's since she is not and can never be a patriarch.  Likewise men who do not do their duty as patriarchs, ruin the entire world and will answer for it to a higher degree than women who's duty is not to be a patriarch.

Yeah that's wrong. If Eve wasn't also charged with introducing sin into the world, then she wouldn't have been punished. But in the story, Adam, Eve, and the serpent are punished. If her decision to eat the fruit is devoid of culpability, you're essentially saying that she's incapable of making that kind of decision. It's very hard not to interpret a kind of sanctimonious "there there" attitude from this line of reasoning. 

 

Edited March 14, 2016 by Basilisa Marie

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Credo in Deum said:

Sorry, I must have offended your pride again.  The example was not telling of anything, but to convey that God will judge based the level of authority one has been given. Because the mans role is greater, then his judgement will be greater.  The President of the United States will be judged with a greater strictness than a member of his cabinet. The Pope will be judged harsher than the local priest.  The office, authority, and level of responsibilities he has is what will make his judgement harsher than those who do not have them or are called to have them. 

"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness"--James 3:1"

The greater the responsibility the greater the judgement. 

 

In all fraternal charity, I think your attitude is getting out of line here. There's no need to accuse people of having hurt pride simply because they don't agree with you. She's not seeing the connection you're making and therefore disagrees with you. That's true for me as well. Does that mean my pride is also being hurt despite being a man?

Yes, it is true that those with greater responsibility are more harshly punished. But you've yet to prove that all men have higher responsibility than women. You've merely cited Adam and Eve, which doesn't prove anything other than both of them screwing up and getting kicked out of Eden.

What we're really getting at is that I will be judged with equal harshness for the same mortal sin that a woman commits. It's not as if I'm given a little bit more hellfire for having mortally sinned than all the women who sinned just as much as I did simply because I'm a man, but that at least seems to be what you're implying. 

Is this indeed a personal theory of yours, or are you basing it off of something concrete and explicit? That's really what people are asking for, I think, because at this point it really does just look like your own personal conclusion you made, or something you heard a priest say who didn't base it off something concrete. Which is perfectly fine, of course -- but you're touting it dogmatically when so far we haven't been given sufficient evidence to believe it.

[Basilisa Marie]

Ugh nevermind. 

Edited March 14, 2016 by Basilisa Marie

[PhuturePriest]

A thread which offered so much promise for legitimately interesting theological discussion has suffered a sad but predictable premature death, whereas any thread with the word "gun" in the title persists to promise at least six pages of tired arguments by the same people. 

This is why we can't have nice things, Phatmass.

[Seven77]

On 3/14/2016, 12:07:06, Basilisa Marie said:

Yeah that's wrong. If Eve wasn't also charged with introducing sin into the world, then she wouldn't have been punished. But in the story, Adam, Eve, and the serpent are punished. If her decision to eat the fruit is devoid of culpability, you're essentially saying that she's incapable of making that kind of decision. It's very hard not to interpret a kind of sanctimonious "there there" attitude from this line of reasoning.

To be fair, I think that Credo was highlighting the fact that Adam's culpability was *different* than Eve's. Yes they both had a role in the fall, but Adam was given the mandate 1st-- to keep the garden, etc. which has to do with priestly function. Adam's culpability was precisely that of a priest's! St. Paul does indeed say that death came through one man and life came through one man. It is a common understanding in the Church Fathers and among good Biblical exegetes that the proximate cause of the Fall was Adam. Eve's role corresponded to his as Our Lady's role in redemption corresponds to Christ's. This all has nothing to do with a condescending or sanctimonious reading. I think the approach could be more tactful maybe but  I think that what Credo was trying to convey is pretty sound, properly understood.

[BarbTherese]

On ‎12‎/‎03‎/‎2016‎ ‎5‎:‎44‎:‎22‎, Basilisa Marie said:

The question raised by the women's ordination is more about the tension between our idea that men and women are different and yet we don't say we have different baptisms.

Very interesting thread and firstly, I have no call to be a priest, nor any sort of desire either. I certainly am not a theologian's bootlace. 

Re the above quotation, good point.

On ‎12‎/‎03‎/‎2016‎ ‎7‎:‎11‎:‎54‎, CatherineM said:

 

It may be judged as simplistic, but if God had wanted me to be a priest, I'd have been born a male. Just as simple as if he'd wanted me to be a horse jockey I would have been born short rather than tall.

Another good point it seemed to me.  I think that our only male priesthood is a doctrine of The Church.

On ‎12‎/‎03‎/‎2016‎ ‎3‎:‎14‎:‎51‎, veritasluxmea said:

. Men aren't priests because God only calls men to the priesthood, men are priests because only men can be fathers, and that's what the priesthood is.

I get the point.

On ‎13‎/‎03‎/‎2016‎ ‎1‎:‎13‎:‎08‎, Credo in Deum said:

Because man was created first, his responsibilitis are greater than the womans. This is what makes him greater and it has nothing to do with his nature being different.

It is on the above I stumble.  I believe that creation itself was turned inside out and upside down with the Death and Resurrection of Jesus.  Something outstandingly and amazingly stunning happened - and I think we are only at the start, if that, of understanding the implications.

On ‎13‎/‎03‎/‎2016‎ ‎1‎:‎53‎:‎00‎, Credo in Deum said:

Tl;dr: A woman can no more be in persona Christi (Christ; New Adam] as a man could be the Virgin Mary (Eve).

Good point.

On ‎14‎/‎03‎/‎2016‎ ‎11‎:‎17‎:‎24‎, Maggyie said:

I think the comparison you use of parents and child is telling. Women are not "junior" members of humanity

I agree.  We are not baptised into the male or female gender.  We are baptised into Christ where all are equal as St Paul has pointed out.  Without marriage, there would be no priests at all.  Hence the great importance to the Catholic Church of marriage, just as without priests, there would be no Catholic Church.  Both Sacraments are vitally important to the life of Catholicism, although different responsibilities and accountabilities.  I don't think that greater comes into that.  Is it an amazing Gift to act in persona of Christ - absolutely, but no priesthood without marriage.  All the vocations speak to each other.......all of them.  To act in Persona of Christ is a stunning Grace - and our priests ideally would be giving praise and thanksgiving to God for their parents..........as we all should ideally.  I don't see how we can say that something is greater, since there would be no priests without marriage in the first place.  All the vocations are linked and intertwined and I don't think that greater or best etc. comes into it all with any of the vocations.  After all, Jesus in His Incarnation does not choose what is regarded as the greater, better and best, He chooses to be incarnated into an impoverished family and to be born in a manger.  The life He lives is one of service and calls us to service too.  Jesus has turned our understandings upside down I think as to 'greatest, better and best'...........but we still find it difficult to impossible to get the 'gist of things'.

On ‎14‎/‎03‎/‎2016‎ ‎2‎:‎37‎:‎05‎, Maggyie said:

Right Credo, and you have not established that men have a greater responsibility than women simply because they are men.  Let's look at the Scripture. More women than men are teachers (including catechists) does that mean they will be judged more strictly than men who don't teach? 

I am guessing this is a pet theory of yours and that you can't cite anywhere where the church actually teaches that women are junior varsity. 

Good points.

Edited March 17, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Ice_nine]

She say no

[HisChildForever]

On March 13, 2016 at 1:03:23 PM, Credo in Deum said:

Youre welcome to think it's malarkey-ish, but the fact remains God created men to be patriarchs and so he gave men a greater responsibility. Do you think the judgment of a child will be equal to that of the parents who are responsible for the child? No, they won't be, because God will judge based on the leve of responsibilities he has assigned to them.  Likewise God will judge all men based on the level of responsibility he has given us as heads of the family and mankind.

Maybe I hurt your pride, but I also don't believe God will be patting you on the head saying "there there little lady", no you will also be judged based on how well you have fulfilled God's will as a woman. But if you're butthurt because you won't be held to a rougher judgment than men because our responsibilities are greater, then I don't know what to tell you.  It seems like a ridiculous thing to be butthurt about. Had God made women first, I would say you would have the rougher judgment and I would have been thankfull to not be a woman because of it. Maybe you miss the point of it but our responsibilities will be rougher not because we have xy chromosomes but because God created us first. Those who are first always have the greater responsibility.

As the Bible says through ONE MAN sin entered he world. One Man. Eve is not charged with introducing sin into the world. No that blame is given to Adam since as the patriarch he was responsible for the entire world.  He f'd up his responsibilities and the entire world suffered for it.  His judgement, based on the level of his responsibilities, is greater than Eve's since she is not and can never be a patriarch.  Likewise men who do not do their duty as patriarchs, ruin the entire world and will answer for it to a higher degree than women who's duty is not to be a patriarch.

 

Men and women have different but equally important roles. Both have immensely important and great responsibilities. It seems you are placing greater value on traditional masculine roles like strength and leadership, completely discounting the great value of traditional feminine roles like compassion and humility. "Those who are first always have the greater responsibility" immediately reminded me of "the first shall be last and the last shall be first." And finally, I have always thought of the "through one man" verse as serving two purposes. One, it signifies that humanity brought sin and thus pain/suffering/death into the world; and two, where Adam went wrong Christ went right. Likewise we see where Eve went wrong Mary went right. Adam and Eve were equally culpable. Both exhibited pride, just in different ways. If only Adam was responsible, Eve would have been permitted to stay in the Garden.

[Credo in Deum]

On 3/18/2016, 3:39:15, HisChildForever said:

Men and women have different but equally important roles. Both have immensely important and great responsibilities. It seems you are placing greater value on traditional masculine roles like strength and leadership, completely discounting the great value of traditional feminine roles like compassion and humility. "Those who are first always have the greater responsibility" immediately reminded me of "the first shall be last and the last shall be first." And finally, I have always thought of the "through one man" verse as serving two purposes. One, it signifies that humanity brought sin and thus pain/suffering/death into the world; and two, where Adam went wrong Christ went right. Likewise we see where Eve went wrong Mary went right. Adam and Eve were equally culpable. Both exhibited pride, just in different ways. If only Adam was responsible, Eve would have been permitted to stay in the Garden.

Sorry for the late reply folks. Original sin did not enter the world through the fall of Eve and it would not have entered through Eve even if she was the only one to sin. Heck even death wouldn't have entered the world if Eve was the only one to sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2081.htm#article5

Article 5. Whether if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would have contracted original sin?

Objection 1. It would seem that if Eve, and not Adam, hadsinned, their children would have contracted original sin. Because we contract original sinfrom our parents, in so far as we were once in them, according to the word of the Apostle(Romans 5:12): "In whom all have sinned." Now a man pre-exist in his mother as well as in his father. Therefore a man would have contracted original sin from his mother's sin as well as from his father's.

Objection 2. Further, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would have been born liable to suffering and death, since it is "the mother" that "provides the matter in generation" as the Philosopherstates (De Gener. Animal. ii, 1,4), when death and liability to suffering are the necessaryresults of matter. Now liability to suffering and the necessity of dying are punishments oforiginal sin. Therefore if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would contract original sin.

Objection 3. Further,Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3) that "the Holy Ghost came upon the Virgin," (of whomChrist was to be born withoutoriginal sin) "purifying her." But this purification would not have been necessary, if the infection of original sin were not contracted from the mother. Therefore the infection oforiginal sin is contracted from the mother: so that if Eve hadsinned, her children would have contracted original sin, even ifAdam had not sinned.

On the contrary, The Apostlesays (Romans 5:12): "By oneman sin entered into this world." Now if the woman would have transmitted original sin to her children, he should have said that it entered by two, since both of them sinned, or rather that it entered by a woman, since shesinned first. Therefore original sin is transmitted to the children, not by the mother, but by the father.

I answer that, The solution of this question is made clear by what has been said. For it has been stated (1) that original sinis transmitted by the first parentin so far as he is the mover in the begetting of his children: wherefore it has been said (4) that if anyone were begotten materially only, of human flesh, they would not contract original sin. Now it is evident that in the opinion of philosophers, the active principle of generation is from the father, while the mother provides the matter. Therefore original sin, is contracted, not from the mother, but from the father: so that, accordingly, if Eve, and notAdam, had sinned, their children would not contract original sin: whereas, if Adam, and not Eve, had sinned, they would contractit.

Reply to Objection 1. The child pre-exists in its father as in its active principle, and in itsmother, as in its material and passive principle. Consequently the comparison fails.

Reply to Objection 2. Some hold that if Eve, and not Adam, hadsinned, their children would be immune from the sin, but would have been subject to thenecessity of dying and to otherforms of suffering that are anecessary result of the matterwhich is provided by the mother, not as punishments, but asactual defects. This, however, seems unreasonable. Because, as stated in the I, 97, A1, 2, ad 4,immortality and impassibility, in the original state, were a result, not of the condition of matter, but of original justice, whereby the body was subjected to thesoul, so long as the soulremained subject to God. Now privation of original justice isoriginal sin. If, therefore, supposing Adam had notsinned, original sin would not have been transmitted to posterity on account of Eve'ssin; it is evident that the children would not have been deprived of original justice: and consequently they would not have been liable to suffer and subject to the necessity of dying.

Reply to Objection 3. This prevenient purification in theBlessed Virgin was not needed to hinder the transmission oforiginal sin, but because it behooved the Mother of God "to shine with the greatest purity" [Cf. Anselm, De Concep. Virg. xviii.]. For nothing is worthy to receive God unless it be pure, according to Psalm 92:5: "Holiness becometh Thy House, O Lord."

 

Man holds the greater responsibility and always has. This is what God has willed from the beginning.  Had God made man and woman at the same time, in the same way, then your idea that they both were equally responsible for original sin would be correct.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Credo in Deum

[Maggyie]

I love Thomas's forays into reproductive science. The mom provides the "matter" and the dad is the "mover" in begetting children. That's not how this works Tom. 

Anyway Credo you have yet to show where it is taught that a man's particular judgement will be harsher than a woman's, assuming they committed the same sins with the same mitigating circumstances. Original sin is inherited but where does it say the above. Thanks

[Credo in Deum]

57 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

I love Thomas's forays into reproductive science. The mom provides the "matter" and the dad is the "mover" in begetting children. That's not how this works Tom. 

Anyway Credo you have yet to show where it is taught that a man's particular judgement will be harsher than a woman's, assuming they committed the same sins with the same mitigating circumstances. Original sin is inherited but where does it say the above. Thanks

I don't see how I have yet to show that the judgment for men will be more severe, since its clearly shown above that Adam held the greater  responsibility to both God and mankind to not commit sin. God created men to be responsible for all of mankind (Patriarchs). He did not give women this role, and thus women will not be judged to the degree men will be. If God does judge women to the same degree as men, then He is not just.  However, we are taught that God is fair and thus He will not judge subjects to the same degree as Kings, students to teachers, bishops to priests, nor women to men. 

Edited March 23, 2016 by Credo in Deum

[Maggyie]

3 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

I don't see how I have yet to show that the judgment for men will be more severe, since its clearly shown above that Adam held the greater  responsibility to both God and mankind to not commit sin. God created men to be responsible for all of mankind (Patriarchs). He did not give women this role, and thus women will not be judged to the degree men will be. If God does judge women to the same degree as men, then He is not just.  However, we are taught that God is fair and thus He will not judge subjects to the same degree as Kings, students to teachers, bishops to priests, nor women to men. 

Again please cite the church's teaching, not your theological speculation. 

[Era Might]

I was at a Buddhist discussion group and we watched a movie about a Buddhist nun, and the Dalai Lama was in it and he acknowledged that Buddhists weren't ready to see women ascend the ranks. The group turned on this and basically gave the progressive critique of male priests (there was an ex-nun in the group). But I pointed out that the woman in the movie herself spoke of her vocation as a hermit as something that had no purpose or career in the worldly sense...being a nun gave her no special holiness, no credentials for power. To translate her vocation into a graduated advancement to priesthood was, I argued, to betray her vocation, and I pointed out that even in Catholicism it isn't holiness that qualified a man for the priesthood, it's a specific appointment to a specific office. If we're going to have offices at all, then they imply something external to the person filling the office...restricting the priesthood to men, regardless of its theological justification, is not a statement on individuals, but on the office itself. There are plenty of holy and capable men who don't become priests, and many of them are in religious life.