Pope's airplane freestyle on women priests

[Jack4]

26 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

 Just noticed that I'd thanked you in my 100th post. 

[Nihil Obstat]

[LittleWaySoul]

22 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I think before we continue calling the priest husband Church bride comparison a stupid or lame argument we should know it's origin. I thought it was Pope Saint John Paul II, though I could be mistaken. 

Actually, I'm pretty sure the tradition goes back much further than JPII, though I could also be mistaken. 

Regardless, I agree: it's neither stupid nor lame; it's legitimate theology. 

How convincing it is, on the other hand, is variable person to person. 

[Gabriela]

I think of it this way: As a metaphor that simply gives us an image with which to imagine the priest–Church relationship, the comparison is fine. Like any metaphor, it can be helpful in getting people to understand what the relationship is like.

But as an argument for why the relationship is how it is, and not otherwise, it's lame. It's an explanatory tool, not a justification or reason why.

Does that make sense?

[LittleWaySoul]

2 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

I think of it this way: As a metaphor that simply gives us an image with which to imagine the priest–Church relationship, the comparison is fine. Like any metaphor, it can be helpful in getting people to understand what the relationship is like.

But as an argument for why the relationship is how it is, and not otherwise, it's lame. It's an explanatory tool, not a justification or reason why.

Does that make sense?

Totally! Though I don't think it should be excluded as an argument entirely. Perhaps just used as a supporting argument to the "in persona Christi" one that we both find more convincing. Some people find certain things more convincing than others.  

[Jack4]

18 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

 

And I've even become a Chummy Commoner !

[Ice_nine]

15 hours ago, Gabriela said:

I think of it this way: As a metaphor that simply gives us an image with which to imagine the priest–Church relationship, the comparison is fine. Like any metaphor, it can be helpful in getting people to understand what the relationship is like.

But as an argument for why the relationship is how it is, and not otherwise, it's lame. It's an explanatory tool, not a justification or reason why.

Does that make sense?

Yes. This is what I meant when I said "stupid" It's not that the metaphor is lame, it's just not a good argument to prove something

[Peace]

9 hours ago, Jack4 said:

 

And I've even become a Chummy Commoner !

It doesn't take much.

[LittleWaySoul]

17 minutes ago, Peace said:

It doesn't take much.

Aww, don't rain on his parade!

(Congrats, @Jack4) 

[PhuturePriest]

On 11/2/2016 at 0:23 PM, Gabriela said:

What more is there to it? The abstract metaphor of a female Church and a priest who is married to Her and, hence, only a male priesthood?

Cuz those are the only two arguments I've ever heard. We've brought up the lame arguments against women priests multiple times in here, and no one's ever given any better ones.

But I agree it's wrong and misleading to call it a "ban on women priests".

I recently read an article explaining that in Biblical terms, your father is whoever feeds you. So in the Garden, for instance, Adam accepted the spiritual food of Satan over God's spiritual food, Joseph became a father to Egypt because he led and fed them, and so on and so forth. This is why Jesus says the father of the pharisees is Satan, because they do their father's will. Therefore, biblically speaking, only men can be priests because priests feed, care for, and generate the flock.

Edited November 4, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[Gabriela]

18 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

I recently read an article explaining that in Biblical terms, your father is whoever feeds you. So in the Garden, for instance, Adam accepted the spiritual food of Satan over God's spiritual food, Joseph became a father to Egypt because he led and fed them, and so on and so forth. This is why Jesus says the father of the pharisees is Satan, because they do their father's will. Therefore, biblically speaking, only men can be priests because priests feed, care for, and generate the flock.

You're using the same logic we've identified is weak: A metaphor can help explain; it can aid comprehension. It makes for a bad justification or reason why.

[LittleWaySoul]

7 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

You're using the same logic we've identified is weak: A metaphor can help explain; it can aid comprehension. It makes for a bad justification or reason why.

Yeah I actually tend to this one is even weaker as an argument. Especially since "feed" can mean so many different things. 

[CountrySteve21]

1 hour ago, Gabriela said:

You're using the same logic we've identified is weak: A metaphor can help explain; it can aid comprehension. It makes for a bad justification or reason why.

In a certain sense, it goes back to the way we understand gender roles and matrimony. The man is life-giver and the women is life-bearer. Divine Revelation says that God's relationship with his Church is a marriage. Christ is the bridegroom and the Church is the Bride. When God became Incarnate, He chose to become a male to be complimentary to this imagery as life-giver.

To quote a book titled "apologetics and Catholic Doctrine " He became a man in order to be the Husband of the Church and at the same time the perfect image of the Fatherhood of God. A woman cannot be a Christian priest, because she cannot be a husband and father. 

[LittleWaySoul]

1 hour ago, CountrySteve21 said:

it goes back to the way we understand gender roles and matrimony. The man is life-giver and the women is life-bearer.

Except that we don't understand it that way anymore. It's a scientifically and theologically outdated understanding of conception and the parents' involvement in it. As far as I know, we currently view the mother and father as co-creators of their children with God. They are both life-givers in this respect, and in that way this analogy fails. 

I'm pretty much in agreement with others here that the strongest arguments for a male-only priesthood are the facts that (1) Jesus Christ ordained it to be so (no pun intended), and (2) a priest acts in persona Christi, and therefore must be a man like Christ was. Additionally, the Church has spoken definitively on the matter and therefore calling it into question also calls the Church's authority into question. These reasons are more than good enough for me. Other analogous arguments are much more supplementary, despite often being quite theologically rich, and therefore may be convincing to a greater or lesser degree depending on the person.

[KnightofChrist]

On 11/2/2016 at 1:23 PM, Gabriela said:

On 11/2/2016 at 8:04 PM, Ice_nine said:

 

 

 

44 minutes ago, LittleWaySoul said:

Except that we don't understand it that way anymore. It's a scientifically and theologically outdated understanding of conception and the parents' involvement in it. As far as I know, we currently view the mother and father as co-creators of their children with God. They are both life-givers in this respect, and in that way this analogy fails. 

No it doesn't fail and it's not outdated. God is the creator of all life. That Man and woman are co-creators is true from a certain point of view, God uses each to create life. Man is still life giver and woman is still life bearer. Even in a biological sense this is true. Man gives his sperm to the woman and the woman bears the life created by the union of the sperm and the egg. It doesn't fail, the objections to the priest husband Church bride are weak and a bit silly.

On 11/3/2016 at 7:45 PM, Gabriela said:

I think of it this way: As a metaphor that simply gives us an image with which to imagine the priest–Church relationship, the comparison is fine. Like any metaphor, it can be helpful in getting people to understand what the relationship is like.

But as an argument for why the relationship is how it is, and not otherwise, it's lame. It's an explanatory tool, not a justification or reason why.

Does that make sense?

No, and I still find it disrespectful to call it lame or stupid.