Pope's airplane freestyle on women priests

[dUSt]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-women-idUSKBN12W4L7

Pope Francis says there will never be women priests. Give him his props! haha

One thing I don't like about how the media reports this is how they call it a "ban on women priests".

I also don't like their super short explanation of why the church has this stance:

"The Catholic Church teaches that women cannot be ordained priests because Jesus willingly chose only men as his apostles. Those calling for women priests say he was only following the norms of his time."

Umm, yeah, more to it than that buddy.

 

[Gabriela]

31 minutes ago, dUSt said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-women-idUSKBN12W4L7

Pope Francis says there will never be women priests. Give him his props! haha

One thing I don't like about how the media reports this is how they call it a "ban on women priests".

I also don't like their super short explanation of why the church has this stance:

"The Catholic Church teaches that women cannot be ordained priests because Jesus willingly chose only men as his apostles. Those calling for women priests say he was only following the norms of his time."

Umm, yeah, more to it than that buddy.

 

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".

[Peace]

1 hour ago, 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".

Isn't it an infallible teaching of the Church? I don't know, but my impression is that it is more a matter of revelation than something that must be justified with logic.

[dUSt]

3 hours ago, 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".

"In persona of Christ"... I would think that if one wanted a woman to be a priest they would either have to deny the manhood of Christ, or deny that a priest is to be an alterChristus.

[Gabriela]

1 hour ago, dUSt said:

"In persona of Christ"... I would think that if one wanted a woman to be a priest they would either have to deny the manhood of Christ, or deny that a priest is to be an alterChristus.

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.

But then I'd ask: Why do we even consider the priest to be "in persona Christi" in the first place? I mean, he's not the one on the altar. Is it just because Christ was both sacrifice and sacrificer at the same time? It seems kinda' weird to think of someone as both the priest doing the sacrificing and the "animal" being sacrificed. I think of this in Jewish terms, and though I know the Church refers to Christ as the High Priest, it's hard for me to see Him as both priest and sacrifice in the moment He's on the cross/altar, because that's really not how it worked in the Temple. The image just doesn't correspond to the OT...

(I could also ask, from a Jewish perspective, why in the world we drink the blood of the sacrifice when the consumption of blood was strengst verboten in the OT—but I guess we should save that for another thread.  )

[Amppax]

6 minutes ago, 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.

But then I'd ask: Why do we even consider the priest to be "in persona Christi" in the first place? I mean, he's not the one on the altar. Is it just because Christ was both sacrifice and sacrificer at the same time? It seems kinda' weird to think of someone as both the priest doing the sacrificing and the "animal" being sacrificed. I think of this in Jewish terms, and though I know the Church refers to Christ as the High Priest, it's hard for me to see Him as both priest and sacrifice in the moment He's on the cross/altar, because that's really not how it worked in the Temple. The image just doesn't correspond to the OT...

(I could also ask, from a Jewish perspective, why in the world we drink the blood of the sacrifice when the consumption of blood was strengst verboten in the OT—but I guess we should save that for another thread.  )

Well that's not exactly what I said, but close enough. My point was that a person is either male or female, and that the physical and the spiritual are not separable. 

In answer to your question, yes, it is because Christ was both priest and victim. We see him as a priest at the Last Supper, where he institutes the Eucharist. But the Last Supper and Calvary are intrinsically linked (a pithy line from Scott Hahn "without the Last Supper, Calvary was just a Roman execution"). The Passover sacrifice Jesus began at the Last Supper is not completed until he offers himself upon the cross. 

An aside, you might enjoy Brant Pitre's book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. I'm pretty sure he get's into the whole blood question. 

[Gabriela]

Well, in that case, that's definitely the best argument for an all-male priesthood that I've heard yet.

Do we have any others?

[CatherineM]

He broke every social taboo of the time. If he'd wanted to ordain women, he'd have done so, starting with his mom. 

[Ice_nine]

6 hours ago, 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 think that metaphor is a poor explanation for why there's a male only priesthood. The Church is also called "The Body of Christ" so that would make priests gay or something? Stupid.

I mean Jesus called God "Father" and chose only male apostles. He violated many social norms especially in dealing with women so I don't think He was really worried about that.

It's good enough for me.

[LittleWaySoul]

43 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

He broke every social taboo of the time. If he'd wanted to ordain women, he'd have done so, starting with his mom. 

 

32 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

I mean Jesus called God "Father" and chose only male apostles. He violated many social norms especially in dealing with women so I don't think He was really worried about that.

It's good enough for me.

I'm out of props. 

[KnightofChrist]

7 hours ago, Gabriela said:

43 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

I think that metaphor is a poor explanation for why there's a male only priesthood. The Church is also called "The Body of Christ" so that would make priests gay or something? Stupid.

I mean Jesus called God "Father" and chose only male apostles. He violated many social norms especially in dealing with women so I don't think He was really worried about that.

It's good enough for me.

 

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. 

Also I believe you forget, when a couple is married, the two become one flesh, so that is how the Church is both the Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ and how the comparison would still work and not be stupid or gay.

And @dUSt seriously can we get the 'see html' in the reply box? So we can delete or better edit replies. Once I quote someone I can't unquote them, no way to delete, not that I've found one mobile devices. 

[Jack4]

17 hours ago, dUSt said:

"In persona of Christ"... I would think that if one wanted a woman to be a priest they would either have to deny the manhood of Christ, or deny that a priest is to be an alterChristus.

I'm not sure about that. If a person wants a European to be a priest, would they either have to deny the semitic ancestry of Jesus, or deny that a priest is to be an alter Christus ?

[Nihil Obstat]

15 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I'm not sure about that. If a person wants a European to be a priest, would they either have to deny the semitic ancestry of Jesus, or deny that a priest is to be an alter Christus ?

No, I think such a person would have to deny that one's ancestry and/or race is integrally related to the substance of the human person. Which would be correct. 

[Jack4]

8 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

No, I think such a person would have to deny that one's ancestry and/or race is integrally related to the substance of the human person. Which would be correct. 

Thank you. 

[Nihil Obstat]

31 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

Thank you. 

[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.