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

[Nihil Obstat]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

So much for binding and loosing.

That is not really how that works. The pope does not get to create doctrines.

[Peace]

13 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

That is not really how that works. The pope does not get to create doctrines.

Only the apostles get to create doctrines? That's totally messed up bro.

[Nihil Obstat]

. . .

[veritasluxmea]

On 3/27/2016, 9:38:44, beatitude said:

However, using arguments from biology against women's ordination doesn't make sense either. We don't have an all-male priesthood because women are biologically incapable of being priests in the way men are biologically incapable of giving birth. There's nothing about the male reproductive system in and of itself that's essential to priesthood. 

This caught my eye because it relates to Theology of the Body again. It's not the male reproductive system in and of itself that's essential to the priesthood, but it's the male soul that is. You just can't have one without the other. Divorcing the two logically leads to issues like the legitimization of transgender-ism. 

[PhuturePriest]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Only the apostles get to create doctrines? That's totally messed up bro.

In my understanding, the Pope and magisterium define and acknowledge doctrines. They don't make them. Big difference. If they do indeed make doctrines, there's no reason we can't have women priests, contraception, and the whole list our society demands. As it is, the Pope and magisterium have only the power to infallibly define that which is already true, thus binding these now revealed truths of God on his people. 

[Peace]

I don't know if that result would necessarily follow. You could still have infallibility even if public revelation had extended past the date of the death of the last apostle.

[Nihil Obstat]

Wait, you are not actually serious, are you? I thought you were trolling.

[Peace]

6 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Wait, you are not actually serious, are you? I thought you were trolling.

LOL. I am never serious.

But I dunno if binding and loosing is strictly limited to acknowledging what is already true. It seems that the apostles have certain powers that are truly within their discretion (although guided by the Holy Spirit).

But maybe that is wrong. I am open to correction if you have anything on point.

[Nihil Obstat]

5 hours ago, Peace said:

LOL. I am never serious.

But I dunno if binding and loosing is strictly limited to acknowledging what is already true. It seems that the apostles have certain powers that are truly within their discretion (although guided by the Holy Spirit).

But maybe that is wrong. I am open to correction if you have anything on point.

I would recommend reading the documents from the First Vatican Council. This part is very direct, but reading everything from the council will give you a broader picture.

 

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].

[Peace]

On 3/30/2016, 1:21:13, Nihil Obstat said:

I would recommend reading the documents from the First Vatican Council. This part is very direct, but reading everything from the council will give you a broader picture.

 

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].

Thanks. I was going for something slightly different though I think. The above quote, I think, deals with popes that come after the death of the apostles, but I am not sure if it applies to Peter himself.

Phuture Priest seemed to say that if popes "create" doctrine instead of "recognize" doctrine then the whole shebang goes out the window. There is nothing stopping the pope from ordaining a rottweiler.

But even if popes do create doctrine, I don't think that his conclusion necessarily follows. The question is, did the apostles create doctrine (with the help of the Holy Spirit) or did they just recognize something that was already written in the Heavens? Perhaps they can create doctrine and still get it right.

Kind of putting it another way, which one of these translations would you say is correct:

New American Standard Bible
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

Douay-Rheims

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The NASB seems to say "XYZ was written in the heavens. Peter just gets to declare it."  On the other hand, the DR seems to say "Peter declares it, and then it gets written in the heavens".

I don't necessarily know that the former is correct and that the latter is incorrect. Any opinion on that? I haven't really looked into it at all to be honest, but I would think that there is some argument that the apostles really did get to "create" doctrine that then became "the truth".

Let's take the council of Jerusalem. The apostles basically say "No circumcision shall be necessary for a person to be saved." What I speculate here is that they could also have concluded "Circumcision, like baptism, shall be necessary for a person to be saved." Then Heaven would have adjusted itself accordingly.

Now how would that happen? I dunno. A mystery I suppose.

This is all speculation of course.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Peace

[Nihil Obstat]

Revelation continued until the death of the last apostle. St. Peter and the other apostles did not create doctrine so much as doctrine was revealed to them in a direct manner. Such revelations ceased when the apostles died, they were recorded faithfully in the Bible as well as passed on orally. At that point those who were selected as bishops and pontiffs could only transmit faithfully that doctrine which had already been revealed. Nothing new could be revealed or created, though there was much to interpret and teach and disseminate.

[beatitude]

On ‎30‎/‎03‎/‎2016‎ ‎04‎:‎20‎:‎26, veritasluxmea said:

This caught my eye because it relates to Theology of the Body again. It's not the male reproductive system in and of itself that's essential to the priesthood, but it's the male soul that is. You just can't have one without the other. Divorcing the two logically leads to issues like the legitimization of transgender-ism. 

There are problems with this. I think you are conflating the soul with our idea of gender - the belief that male organs must be accompanied by something called maleness or masculinity. And what we call masculinity is usually the belief that boys don't cry and they don't wear pink and other similar things. But a boy isn't born with an aversion to pink, he's socialised into seeing it as not for him. He is no less a boy if he cries openly, just as a girl is no less a girl if she wants to play with toy cars rather than dolls. As I don't accept the whole concept of gender, I can't accept transgenderism either. There are more perspectives on this than you are allowing for.  You seem to be suggesting that sex organs are tied to gender and gender is tied to the soul, but if you take gender out of the equation, that argument no longer holds.

Basilisa is right - this is a very hazy grey area for theology and not much has been written about it. The Church has an all-male priesthood, but I don't know why this is so, and none of the arguments either way have much weight. I'm OK with that. I don't need a perfect answer for everything. There are some things I'm happy to just accept.

[veritasluxmea]

5 hours ago, beatitude said:

There are problems with this. I think you are conflating the soul with our idea of gender - the belief that male organs must be accompanied by something called maleness or masculinity. 

Hum. I think I understand what you are saying, but I think you misunderstand me. I don't agree with your statement that I am confusing the expression of gender in the world with the male or female soul. 

5 hours ago, beatitude said:

And what we call masculinity is usually the belief that boys don't cry and they don't wear pink and other similar things. But a boy isn't born with an aversion to pink, he's socialised into seeing it as not for him. He is no less a boy if he cries openly, just as a girl is no less a girl if she wants to play with toy cars rather than dolls. 

Yes, I agree, especially with the bolded. 

5 hours ago, beatitude said:

As I don't accept the whole concept of gender, I can't accept transgenderism either. There are more perspectives on this than you are allowing for.  

I am not sure I understand what you're saying here. I agree that there are more perspectives on it because it's still an area that's being explored and understood. 

5 hours ago, beatitude said:

You seem to be suggesting that sex organs are tied to gender and gender is tied to the soul, but if you take gender out of the equation, that argument no longer holds.

I am suggesting that sex organs- but more specifically your male or female body, your DNA, are tied to who you are as a human being, as a person. I see who you are (male or female) and how that is expressed in society (gender) as different areas. So I am not exactly following how gender relates to the discussion, I am not seeing how I have put gender in the equation. 

5 hours ago, beatitude said:

Basilisa is right - this is a very hazy grey area for theology and not much has been written about it. The Church has an all-male priesthood, but I don't know why this is so, and none of the arguments either way have much weight. I'm OK with that. I don't need a perfect answer for everything. There are some things I'm happy to just accept.

Yes, I do agree with you! I see the idea being tossed around that female ordination needs to be further elaborated, but I think this is already starting to unfold. I think St John Paul was ahead of his time on this and started to provide the framework already through Theology of the Body. It doesn't address female ordination in black and white terms because it's providing the deeper understanding of humanity and sexuality that's needed to reach a clear understanding on the issue. I think as the centuries pass and this issue is explored and the accompanying theology developed, it will simply be a deeper and further insight on his line of thought, on where the Church is already headed with this. I personally think it is crucial to understand because it addresses the brokenness of our human sexuality and gives Christ's answer. It seems connected to so many surface issues hurting people today. But... I agree that sometimes I don't need, or there simply isn't, a perfect and understandable answer for everything. Being able to accept that and more forward anyways is a good thing. 

Edited April 2, 2016 by veritasluxmea

[beatitude]

1 hour ago, veritasluxmea said:

I am suggesting that sex organs- but more specifically your male or female body, your DNA, are tied to who you are as a human being, as a person. I see who you are (male or female) and how that is expressed in society (gender) as different areas. So I am not exactly following how gender relates to the discussion, I am not seeing how I have put gender in the equation.

I got confused because you wrote that divorcing the male soul from the male reproductive system leads to a justification of transgenderism. But the trans issue is about gender, not about the soul. Nothing I've read on this topic and hardly any of the trans people I've met phrase it in such spiritual terms. Usually they approach it from a psychological or even a biological perspective (suggesting that trans people's brains are wired differently, for example). There is a lot of discussion about gender theory as it relates to trans people, but very little on spirituality.

1 hour ago, veritasluxmea said:

I think as the centuries pass and this issue is explored and the accompanying theology developed, it will simply be a deeper and further insight on his line of thought, on where the Church is already headed with this. I personally think it is crucial to understand because it addresses the brokenness of our human sexuality and gives Christ's answer. It seems connected to so many surface issues hurting people today.

I agree with this, but this is part of the reason why I'm so reluctant to give the question of female ordination too much attention, or to try and convince myself of answers that aren't satisfying, or to construct answers of my own. It's such a sensitive and sore area for many people that a bad answer can do as much damage as no answer at all. Sometimes silence is the wisest response for now. I'm sure that things will become clearer with a lot of time and patience, as you say.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

There is actually another argument for womans ordination and that is that mary magdella was the apostle of the apostles. I don't know about woman clergy as we have nunns and they are our prophetesses. But then again perhaps it would be ok if they are chaste, i honestly don't know. But there could be no co habitiation between male priests and female ones.