Pope's airplane freestyle on women priests

[KnightofChrist]

Good reading for this topic from Inter Insigniores, (which may very well better explain the analogy)

"For the salvation offered by God to men and women, the union with him to which they are called – in short, the Covenant- took on, from the Old Testament Prophets onwards, the privileged form of a nuptial mystery: for God the Chosen People is seen as his ardently loved spouse. Both Jewish and Christian tradition has discovered the depth of this intimacy of love by reading and rereading the Song of Songs; the divine Bridegroom will remain faithful even when the Bride betrays his love, when Israel is unfaithful to God (Hos.1-3; Jer.2). When the ‘fullness of time'(Gal.4:4) comes, the Word, the Son of God, takes on flesh in order to establish and seal the new and eternal Covenant in his blood, which will be shed for many so that sins may be forgiven. His death will gather together again the scattered children of God; from his pierced side will be born the Church, as Eve was born from Adam’s side. At that time there is fully and eternally accomplished the nuptial mystery proclaimed and hymned in the Old Testament: Christ is the Bridegroom; the Church his Bride, whom he loves because he has gained her by his blood and made her glorious, holy and without blemish, and henceforth he is inseparable from her. This nuptial theme, which is developed from the Letters of St.Paul onwards (2 Cor.11:2; Eph.5:22-23) to the writings of St.John (especially in Jn.3:29; Rev.19:7,9), is present also in the Synoptic Gospels: the Bridegroom’s friends must not fast as long as he is with them (Mk.2:19); the Kingdom of Heaven is like a king who gave a feast for his son’s weeding (Mt.22:1-14). It is through this Sciptural language, all interwoven with symbols, and which expresses and affects man and women in their profound identity, that there is revealed to us the mystery of God and Christ, a mystery which of itself is unfathomable.

That is why we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man. And therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted that, in actions which demand the character of ordination and in which Christ himself, the author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom, the Head of the Church, is represented, exercising his ministry of salvation- which is in the highest degree the case of the Eucharist- his role (this is the original sense of the word ‘persona’)must be taken by a man. This does not stem from any personal superiority of the latter in the order of values, but only from a difference of fact on the level of functions and service.

Could one say that, since Christ is now in the heavenly condition, from now on it is a matter of indifference whether he be represented by a man or by a woman, since ‘at the resurrection men and women do not marry’ (Mat.22:30)? But this text does not mean that the distinction between man and women, insofar as it determines the identity proper to the person, is suppressed in the glorified state; what holds for us also holds for Christ. It is indeed evident that in human beings the difference of sex exercises an important influence, much deeper than, for example, ethnic differences: the latter do not affect the human person as intimately as the difference of sex, which is directly ordained both for the communion of persons and for the generation of human beings. In Biblical Revelation this difference is the effect of God’s will from the beginning: ‘male and female he created them’ (Gen 1:27)."

Source: http://thejimmyakinstore.com/library/inter-insigniores

[Gabriela]

9 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

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

Quote

lame |lām|

adjective

1 (of a person or animal) unable to walk normally because of an injury or illness affecting the leg or foot: his horse went lame.

2 (of an explanation or excuse) unconvincingly feeble: it was a lame statement and there was no excusing his behavior

You find this disrespectful?

[CountrySteve21]

20 hours 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. 

Interesting. I don't think the view of parents as co-creators and the man as life-giver and the women as life-bearer would be at odds. Though the phrase co-creator seems to bring out the equality of the man and women more so than the phrase I used.

I will have to read more about this. 

[LittleWaySoul]

19 hours ago, CountrySteve21 said:

Interesting. I don't think the view of parents as co-creators and the man as life-giver and the women as life-bearer would be at odds. Though the phrase co-creator seems to bring out the equality of the man and women more so than the phrase I used.

I will have to read more about this. 

The reason I object to the "life-giver"/"life-bearer" thing is because from what I know, historically it was understood that the man's contribution was the entire creation of the child while the woman was merely a vessel. Now we understand that both the man and woman contribute to the creation of a child.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on the understanding of the history here, though. 

[Amppax]

1 hour ago, LittleWaySoul said:

The reason I object to the "life-giver"/"life-bearer" thing is because from what I know, historically it was understood that the man's contribution was the entire creation of the child while the woman was merely a vessel. Now we understand that both the man and woman contribute to the creation of a child.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on the understanding of the history here, though. 

That may be, but like CountrySteve said, I don't think that they are mutually exclusive ways of looking at it. There certainly seems to be something more receptive about a woman's role in conception, and more giving about a man's. This is not to say that a woman is merely a vessel; obviously that would be an inaccurate and archaic way of looking at it. 

I think most of us can agree that the dignity of women can often appear, or actively be, denigrated by the way Catholics approach these sorts of issues. I mean, on the one hand, Francis calls for a theology of women. On the other, he phrases it rather poorly (see this article: https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/simcha-fisher-catholics-stop-being-so-weird-about-women/). I also think that when faithful Catholics, like Gabriela or others over the years, question the logic of the all-male priesthood, they are viewed suspiciously, even though their intent is not to question the Church, but understand what She teaches more fully! Neither situation is good. We should search for an authentic Christian anthropology, to really understand the person as male and female, and to recognize that while there is settle teaching, we can always come to understand it better. 

[Gabriela]

28 minutes ago, Amppax said:

That may be, but like CountrySteve said, I don't think that they are mutually exclusive ways of looking at it. There certainly seems to be something more receptive about a woman's role in conception, and more giving about a man's. This is not to say that a woman is merely a vessel; obviously that would be an inaccurate and archaic way of looking at it. 

I think most of us can agree that the dignity of women can often appear, or actively be, denigrated by the way Catholics approach these sorts of issues. I mean, on the one hand, Francis calls for a theology of women. On the other, he phrases it rather poorly (see this article: https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/simcha-fisher-catholics-stop-being-so-weird-about-women/). I also think that when faithful Catholics, like Gabriela or others over the years, question the logic of the all-male priesthood, they are viewed suspiciously, even though their intent is not to question the Church, but understand what She teaches more fully! Neither situation is good. We should search for an authentic Christian anthropology, to really understand the person as male and female, and to recognize that while there is settle teaching, we can always come to understand it better. 

Thank you, Amppax.  

And yes, I think you're right. It does, however, really bother me when Catholics—including the Pope—talk about needing a "theology of women", as if women are the only sexed individuals. We need a theology of sex in general, i.e., of both women and men. It's not going to do us much good to try to theologize women without considering men at the same time. (I'm not saying this at you specifically. I know you were just repeating what Pope Francis said!)

(That's a great article by Fisher that you linked to, btw. )

Edited November 6, 2016 by Gabriela

[CountrySteve21]

2 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

The reason I object to the "life-giver"/"life-bearer" thing is because from what I know, historically it was understood that the man's contribution was the entire creation of the child while the woman was merely a vessel. Now we understand that both the man and woman contribute to the creation of a child.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on the understanding of the history here, though. 

That's correct from a historical perspective. Fortunately we are developing past that and can view men and women as equals, and their differences as complimentary.  

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/does-the-catholic-church-hate-women

[Guest]

What does the following mean :
 

Quote

 

Galatians 3:28

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian.  For through faith you are all children of God ¹⁷ in Christ Jesus.

 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.   There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

7 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

What does the following mean :
 

 

It means there are no distinctions of one over another. Those comparisons are all relationships that in the old covenant have clear superiors and inferiors. Through His grace we become adopted children of God under His love rather than the old Law, and no longer are we saved in the Old Law. 

 

Aquinas says:

He says therefore: Verily, we are not under the Law, i.e., under a pedagogue, or under restraint, because we are the sons of God. In like manner, you, too, are neither under the Law nor under a pedagogue; for you have attained to grace. Hence you are all the children of God by faith and not through the Law: “For you have not received the spirit of bondage” (i.e., of fear which was given in the Old Law), “but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons,” namely, of charity and love which is given in the New Law through faith (Rom 8:15); “He gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name” (Jn 1: 12). If, then, you are the sons of God by faith, why do you wish to become slaves by the observances of the Law? For faith alone makes man the adopted son of God. Indeed, no one is an adopted son unless he is united to and cleaves to the natural son: “For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom 8:29). For faith makes us sons in Jesus Christ: “That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts” (Eph 3:17). And this in Christ Jesus, i.e., you are sons of God through Jesus Christ.

Still Aquinas:

He elucidates this teaching when he says, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. As if to say: Truly have I said, that as many of you as have been baptized in Christ Jesus have put on Christ, because there is nothing in man that would exclude anyone from the sacrament of the faith of Christ and of baptism. And he mentions three differences among men to show that no one is excluded from faith in Christ by any of them: the first difference concerns one’s rite. Hence he says: There is neither Jew nor Greek. As if to say: Since you have been baptized in Christ, the rite from which you came to Christ, whether it was the Jewish or the Greek, is no ground for saying that anyone occupies a less honorable place in the faith: “Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. For there is one God that justifieth circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through faith” (Rom 3:29). Again: “There is no distinction of the Jew and Greek; for the same is Lord over all” (Rom 10:12).

Reading that passage in a quasi-feminist quasi-Marxist manner strikes me as being highly contrary to our traditional, authoritative commentaries.

The third difference concerns the condition of the nature:there is neither male nor female, for sex makes no difference as far as sharing in the effect of baptism is concerned.

The underlying reason for this explanation is set forth when he says, For you are all one in Christ Jesus. As if to say: Truly, none of these things makes a difference in Christ, because all of you, i.e., believers, are one in Christ Jesus, because through baptism you have all been made members of Christ and you form one body, even though you are distinct individuals: “So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and everyone members one of another” (Rom 12:5); “One body, one Spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling” (Eph 4:4). Now where there is unity, difference has no place. Indeed it was for this unity that Christ prayed: “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee” (Jn 17:21).

[Socrates]

On 11/2/2016 at 5:55 PM, Gabriela said:

That makes sense. But is "persona" necessarily male? This recalls a conversation we were having in some other thread (I have no memory for this sort of thing) where Amppax (I think?) mentioned the personhood of individuals being tied up with their biological sex. So in that case, if Christ's personhood can't be considered apart from his masculinity, then okay, there's a better argument, at least.

Thomistic philosophy considers the soul the "form" of the body, and bound to it in a very real and intimate way, rather than just being a "ghost in the machine."  Unlike much of modern ideology, which sees biological gender as a mere accident, and even changeable, Catholic theology considers it an essential part of the human person, which is an intrinsic part of who that person is.

We'll probably never really understand it full in this life, but Christ has ruled that a (male) man is necessary for the role of priest - just as we may not understand why the matter of bread and wine must be used for the sacrifice of the Eucharist, rather than using other kinds of food and drink.