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

[Nihil Obstat]

36 minutes ago, Tab'le De'Bah-Rye said:

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.

No. Female priests are an impossibility and a grave error.

[Peace]

On April 1, 2016 at 9:40:48 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

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.

Are you sure about that? Take a close look at Acts 15. It seems that they make a real decision, while being guided by the Holy Spirit.

What about imposing the Sunday obligation? Are you saying that God decided in advance that the obligation should be on Sunday and the apostles had no say in it? They could not have put it on Saturday had they so decided?

I don't see what would be inherently wrong with having some synergy in the making of doctrine since our faith is basically a synergistic faith.

But again I can be convinced otherwise if you have anything directly on point.

[Nihil Obstat]

17 minutes ago, Peace said:

Are you sure about that? Take a close look at Acts 15. It seems that they make a real decision, while being guided by the Holy Spirit.

What about imposing the Sunday obligation? Are you saying that God decided in advance that the obligation should be on Sunday and the apostles had no say in it? They could not have put it on Saturday had they so decided?

I don't see what would be inherently wrong with having some synergy in the making of doctrine since our faith is basically a synergistic faith.

But again I can be convinced otherwise if you have anything directly on point.

Yes, I am sure. This is the constant teaching of the Church.  Keep in mind that this is true of matters of doctrine, which are either true or not. Such things are received by the Church's tradition, and nobody has the authority to add or subtract. Popes and bishops included. It is not the same situation if we are talking about legal matters, many of which can change for appropriate reasons, as long as the underlying doctrines are respected. Such  legal matters are within the authority of the magisterium to change if necessary.

[Peace]

35 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Yes, I am sure. This is the constant teaching of the Church.  

LOL. Well then, it should be all the more easy for you to provide a statement in support of your assertion. I shall patiently await the evidence.

35 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Keep in mind that this is true of matters of doctrine, which are either true or not. Such things are received by the Church's tradition, and nobody has the authority to add or subtract. Popes and bishops included. It is not the same situation if we are talking about legal matters, many of which can change for appropriate reasons, as long as the underlying doctrines are respected. Such  legal matters are within the authority of the magisterium to change if necessary.

Does doctrine include the requirements for salvation? Or is that a legal matter in your view?

Regardless, the requirements are "true" because an authority (God) says that they are true. But what if God gives the authority to make the decision to someone else (such as Peter)? Then what Peter says is "true" because God has given him the authority to set the rules.

People can change their mind, but can't contradict a rule once it has been "written into heaven" or ratified by God, if you will.

I don't think what I am saying is totally crazy. If you read Matthew literally it seems to say exactly what I have asserted here: "whatsoever thou shall bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven."

Now, I will readily agree with you that the post-apostolic Popes have no such authority. The Church has said that.

But has the Church said what you assert - that the Apostles themselves only "recognize" doctrine but had no ability or hand in creating it themselves? I don't know if the Church has said that, but again, if you can point me to it I have no problem conceding you the argument.

Sorry to get all Martin Luther on you. But show me the money.

[Not The Philosopher]

13 minutes ago, Peace said:

I don't think what I am saying is totally crazy. If you read Matthew literally it seems to say exactly what I have asserted here: "whatsoever thou shall bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven."

 

If you want to get really literal, the Greek refers to things being "bound" and "loosed" in heaven with the perfect tense. This carries a connotation of a completed event which has an ongoing impact on the present, and which isn't easily conveyed in English. The implication being that binding and loosing on earth is just a reflection/result of how things already are in heaven, rather than vice versa.

[Nihil Obstat]

30 minutes ago, Peace said:

LOL. Well then, it should be all the more easy for you to provide a statement in support of your assertion. I shall patiently await the evidence.

Does doctrine include the requirements for salvation? Or is that a legal matter in your view?

Regardless, the requirements are "true" because an authority (God) says that they are true. But what if God gives the authority to make the decision to someone else (such as Peter)? Then what Peter says is "true" because God has given him the authority to set the rules.

People can change their mind, but can't contradict a rule once it has been "written into heaven" or ratified by God, if you will.

I don't think what I am saying is totally crazy. If you read Matthew literally it seems to say exactly what I have asserted here: "whatsoever thou shall bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven."

Now, I will readily agree with you that the post-apostolic Popes have no such authority. The Church has said that.

But has the Church said what you assert - that the Apostles themselves only "recognize" doctrine but had no ability or hand in creating it themselves? I don't know if the Church has said that, but again, if you can point me to it I have no problem conceding you the argument.

Sorry to get all Martin Luther on you. But show me the money.

I gave you Vatican I already. It said very specifically that the authority of the Magisterium is not the power to create doctrines.

[Peace]

1 minute ago, Not The Philosopher said:

If you want to get really literal, the Greek refers to things being "bound" and "loosed" in heaven with the perfect tense. This carries a connotation of a completed event which has an ongoing impact on the present, and which isn't easily conveyed in English. The implication being that binding and loosing on earth is just a reflection/result of how things already are in heaven, rather than vice versa.

Thanks. That is how some of the Bibles translate it, as I noted above. But then you have to essentially agree with the Protestant translations and reject the Catholic one. Such is life.

3 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I gave you Vatican I already. It said very specifically that the authority of the Magisterium is not the power to create doctrines.

Was that in some other part of Vatican I, or the specific portion you quoted? I don't think the portion you quoted is relevant because it appears to be directed to the post-apostolic period. I think if you look at it closely you will agree.

Put another way, I am not certain that the power of the apostles during the apostolic age is the same (as narrow) as the Magisterium during the post-apostolic period.

I mean, the Apostles could be like "Paralyzed man stand up and walk." Poof. He walks. Our Bishops don't exactly have it like that.

[Nihil Obstat]

18 minutes ago, Peace said:

Thanks. That is how some of the Bibles translate it, as I noted above. But then you have to essentially agree with the Protestant translations and reject the Catholic one. Such is life.

Was that in some other part of Vatican I, or the specific portion you quoted? I don't think the portion you quoted is relevant because it appears to be directed to the post-apostolic period. I think if you look at it closely you will agree.

Put another way, I am not certain that the power of the apostles during the apostolic age is the same (as narrow) as the Magisterium during the post-apostolic period.

I mean, the Apostles could be like "Paralyzed man stand up and walk." Poof. He walks. Our Bishops don't exactly have it like that.

Why would we call it "revelation" if the apostles had carte blanche to just make up whatever doctrines they wanted?

And on a deeper level, it is absolutely absurd to think of the apostles creating doctrine in the first place. Think about it a moment.

[Not The Philosopher]

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

Thanks. That is how some of the Bibles translate it, as I noted above. But then you have to essentially agree with the Protestant translations and reject the Catholic one. Such is life.

I never gave an English translation of the verse, or endorsed a particular one. though. I just pointed out the grammar. A past-tense translation is also 'wrong' inasmuch as there is no 1:1 correspondence to the  Greek perfect in English. Every translation is inevitably going to miss some nuance of the original language. It's a judgment call as to what works best in a particular instance. If anything, I'd see this as something in favor of the Catholic approach to scripture inasmuch as it underlines how problematic it is to use a particular translation of the Bible as your sole basis for understanding revelation.

[Amppax]

@Peace I think you may find what you're looking for in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. I'd be more specific, but I'm afraid that I don't know quite where it is, and have a presentation to put together at the moment. http://www.essan.org/SignumMagnum/e%20Books/Fundamentals%20Of%20Catholic%20Dogma.pdf

[Ark]

What philosophical reasons are there for allowing women to be priests?

Equality? If this term is properly understood you realize no two men are equal, let alone the two genders. We differ in traits, some traits are valued more than others, and we realize that nature is a generator of inequality among organisms.

The two genders are not the same, and this is not limited to physiology, endocrinology, or neurology, but metaphysics as well. Man's sin caused our fall, God became man and not woman to redeem, and so men participate in the sacerdotal order through the priesthood, women do so in there own way. 

This does not mean men are superior, it's just the way it is.

 

[PhuturePriest]

3 hours ago, Amppax said:

@Peace I think you may find what you're looking for in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. I'd be more specific, but I'm afraid that I don't know quite where it is, and have a presentation to put together at the moment. http://www.essan.org/SignumMagnum/e%20Books/Fundamentals%20Of%20Catholic%20Dogma.pdf

Oof. I have Fundamentals of Dogma on my bed. It was the core of the curriculum at the CM program I was in. Needless to say, I am by no means a fan. It's good content, but reading it cover to cover is like slowly dragging yourself through glass.

[Peace]

4 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Why would we call it "revelation" if the apostles had carte blanche to just make up whatever doctrines they wanted?

And on a deeper level, it is absolutely absurd to think of the apostles creating doctrine in the first place. Think about it a moment.

What makes it absurd? It seems to me that if the president can give the Vice President the authority to set certain policy God can do the same.

And I wouldn't call it a carte blanche just to make up whatever they want. They are guided by the Holy Spirit, which would never guide them into error. As I wrote, the decision making would be a bit synergistic. You do not see any synergistic language going on in Acts? Honestly?

Of course, this is all just my speculation or private interpretation, if you will. But until you provide, or until I am able to find something by the Church that specifically addresses the point, I do not see why I should not view your assertion as your own speculation. Again, if it is the clear teaching of the Church down through the ages, you should not have too much trouble producing it. I think you already know that I am not one to concede a disputed point without solid proof or logic, neither of which you have presented, with all due respect.

But I will spend some time to see if I can find it myself, as you appear to be either unwilling or unable. No worries.

[PhuturePriest]

Just now, Peace said:

What makes it absurd? It seems to me that if the president can give the Vice President the authority to set certain policy God can do the same.

And I wouldn't call it a carte blanche just to make up whatever they want. They are guided by the Holy Spirit, which would never guide them into error. As I wrote, the decision making would be a bit synergistic. You do not see any synergistic language going on in Acts? Honestly?

Of course, this is all just my speculation or private interpretation, if you will. But until you provide, or until I am able to find something by the Church that specifically addresses the point, I do not see why I should not view your assertion as your own speculation. Again, if it is the clear teaching of the Church down through the ages, you should not have too much trouble producing it. I think you already know that I am not one to concede a disputed point without solid proof or logic, neither of which you have presented, with all due respect.

But I will spend some time to see if I can find it myself, as you appear to be either unwilling or unable. No worries.

Let's not get snarky. Nihil is a married man with a job who also studies at college. He can't exactly dedicate his night to proving his statement (which is the Catholic belief on the matter) to a stranger on teh interwebz.

[Nihil Obstat]

I will bring out what I can when I can. The end of semester is coming and unfortunately my papers come first, not correcting your errors.