Masculinity of God

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:08 PM']As I have pointed out earlier, Julian and Hildegard are both mystics, not theologians. Regarding Bernard, you have yet to post anything that would lead me to believe that he atrributed feminimity to God in any non-mystical way.

I am just as western as you, but I do not acknowledge any tradition, "little 't' or big," that attributes motherhood or feminimity to Christ. I am only familiar with a sparse number of mystics who do so.
[right][snapback]642173[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I tend to wonder if your first statement is correct. Hildegard was intensely learned in the study of Theology (as she was raised in a convent and knew the scriptures almost by memory). Both Julian and Hildegard could read and write in Latin and had access to theological texts and study, etc. (Julian however I would never consider a theologian) I don't know what defines a theologian now, but in her day, Hildegard [i]at [/i]least would have been a Theologian. HIldegard was in my opinion both a theologian[i] and [/i]a mystic------I do not see why the two should be conflicting or divided. Most of her writings are centralized on [i]scripture and visions.[/i]

For example she writes, "When I was 42 years and 7 months old a light of tremendous brightness coming from Heaven poured into my entire mind....[i]All at once I was able to taste of the understanding of books-
the Psalter, the Evangelists and the books of the Old and New Testament[/i]." Why should theology and mysticism be in conflict if both are revelations of God? These understandings were recorded in her first work [i]Scivias[/i]. Hildegard conversed and wrote letters [i]with Bernard of Clairvaux[/i] while composing this work. St. Bernard sent the unfinished manuscript to Pope Eugenius III who read the book to the cardinals and subsequently endorsed her visions,[i] and writings. [/i] It just seems to me, that visionary writing will most likely pertain very much to Theology ---so why must there be a conflict between endorsed spiritual writing and theology?

This is a funny side note, Hildegard, was not a feminist in any way...she preached against the corruption of the times as an "[i]effeminate age[/i]"- haha, ouch, lol

[Semperviva]

[i] I do not acknowledge any tradition, "little 't' or big," that attributes motherhood or feminimity to Christ. I am only familiar with a sparse number of mystics who do so.[/i]



"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!
[i]How often have I desired to gather your children together as a mother hen gathers her brood under her wings,[/i]
and you were not willing!" (Luke 13:34).

Analogous, yes. Christ references himself in feminine terms nonetheless.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Semperviva

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jul 13 2005, 05:21 PM']Well there is a differance between being born without original sin and being perfect. Noone claims Mary was perfect, i am sure she occasionaly messed up while sowing and had an imperfection in her body somewhere however having original sin would have made it difficult to cartry God within her.
[right][snapback]642457[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I know what you are saying but dont you think original sin also includes not knowing the truth? Such as, not knowing if their is a god?

[Socrates]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Jul 13 2005, 07:52 PM']I know what you are saying but dont you think original sin also includes not knowing the truth? Such as, not knowing if their is a god?
[right][snapback]642533[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Original sin does cloud the intellect.

[Snowcatpa]

[color=blue] I came back one day after my last post and the thread increased over 4 pages!!!!!! I have so much to say! ack!

Thank you everyone for continuing discussion on an intriguing, if extremely controversial topic. [/color]

[KnightofChrist]

Snowcatpa, Forgive me dear sister I did not mean to hurt you or put you down, this was never my intention. It is hard to see and understand what you really mean when its just written, and I can not hear the voice with feeling behind what it is your saying. Please understand I'm a every black and white (in your case purple and white hehe) person I believe what people tell me and the way they tell it.

Like when reading one of your post it is hard not to see jealously, take the quote
"I look at my brother and think, he’s more reflective of God than I am…than I’ll ever be… granted…. I’m an insignificant nothing. I know it and I accept it and pray for God’s grace and love… but what makes him so great that he is more reflective of God’s nature than I could ever hope to be? I know that sounds absolutely terrible…but …I want to be honest...I thought it. "
Now I know you may have meant this in a different way, the way it came out was that of jealously.

And again in your latest post pride and doubt seem, just maybe seem to arise "In particular with this issue, you are saying that I should just accept it, no questions asked, from a female perspective, brings up, to me, negative images of men telling women in the past to just “accept your place”.
As too "you are saying" I am not the one "saying" what you should just accept it, no questions ask and believe. It is Jesus Christ and His bride Mother Church. Still maybe I've missed understoud you again, I am a man, and men find it hard to understand women at all.

As for "Stay in the kitchen because you’re supposed to be"… instead of saying, "Learn and love your maternal vocation… and if God is so calling you, live out your maternal vocation as a spiritual mother in many different areas of life, like politics or the work force."

I said nothing like that, who the heck would wanna be in the kithcen that smells of elderberries! But if God told me so I would, and do. If I dont help cook I dont eat! See, Vocation and whom God is, are very diffrent my dear Sister in Christ, you may desrin what your vocation is where it be politics or work force or hey life as a Nun! However God does not let you desirn on what He is, "I AM WHO AM" no questions asked. And I thought that was the question being asked, the question that God be a He or she.

"Telling me that I shouldn’t need more convincing on who God says He is, putting down my desire to understand instead of encouraging me to dwell in the mystery of it all in light of learning what the Church teaches, has not been an effective technique for leading me to grow in Christ’s love, even though I whole-heartedly appreciate what I know were the best of your intentions. "
Again forgive me I no way meant to stop you from growing in the love of our Lord Jesus Christ. Still I am confused you seemed to want to know two answers but say you only want one, how to answer the feminist? As to whom God is, God is what he says he is, no questions asked. I know it is hard to do that... still Moses did not ask and he got the most short answer that you'd get from God "I AM WHO AM". Ah do you see why told you this? Say you where Moses in front of the burning bush, THE LIVING GOD and asked "Who are you?" and He answered "I AM WHO AM" would you then say sorry I need more answers... more conviceing... you would not! Again maybe I'm miss understanding but as I read all your other post it did seemed you wanted God not to be a man but a woman, and seemed you wanted the questions answered to fit just that, and that would have been doubt. To admit that Christ is God, and then to doubt an exact satement of His teaching is crtainly a sin, for that implies a denial either of His knowledge or of His vercity. And to want God to be a woman when He says otherwise would do that, I know you believe truly now what He says He is, but it perivously did not sound like that... I'm just trying to explain what I read from you earlier. That is the way I understood it forgive me if I am wrong, and if so I am sorry.


Who are these feminist? Are they your friends you wish to convert to the truth or are they feminist arguments? If they are just feminist arguments there is no need to have them answered, why? Feminism is just a form of Humanism a kinda worship of the self. Feminism is a rejection of men, and since God calls Himself a "He" God as well, well maybe not god(s) but The Ture God yes... and do not forget Feminism brought rise the Abortion Holocaust 50 million babies killed since 1973. Murdered in the name of Feminism. Feminism is dead and dieing it dies everyday as long as Abortion is legal. Feminism is agaist the narture of God and therefor God, and if they abort themselves the will not procreate and die off. The sooner the better. So if it is feminist agruments you have there is no need to answer. It would be a waste of your soul and time.

If it is your feminist friends you should convert to truth, you have much to worry about, for their very soul is at steak (and not the kind you need A1 sauce for I just cant remeber how to spell the other). I will try to help you but I will let you answer what I have written so far...

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Jul 13 2005, 05:10 PM']i dont think she was supernatural either......i think that she lived her life morally perfect. What are the odds of that? Well, besides jesus she was probably the only person to ever live her life like that. She was the only person who used her freewill perfectly. Jesus had free will just as god does but they will only choose to do what is right because they know the answer to everything. Mary didnt. Thats just what i believe though i really dont know.
[right][snapback]642445[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


In the above, you can either mean one of two things. First, you could mean that Mary was made impeccable by God's Grace (ie was incapable of sinning). Second, you could mean that Mary was perfect without the intervention of Grace.

If you mean the second, then this is what is called pelagianism, and there really is no need for Christ's redemptive sacrifice (since we can be perfect on our own).

If you mean the first, then you can mean it in two ways. First, you could mean that Mary, though in a state of Original Sin, was protected by God's Grace in such a way that she committed no personal sin during her life. Second, you could mean that Mary was never in a state of Original Sin, because at the moment of her creation, she was infused with the supernatural grace of which Original Sin is but the privation.

If you mean the first, then you must maintain that Mary was not in perfect communion with God (which is that supernatural grace) when she received into her womb the God-Man. But this is absurd. Clearly, Mary must have been in perfect communion with God in order to be the instrument of the Incarnation.

Thus, Mary must have been saved from Original Sin by the Grace of God at the moment of her creation.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 06:04 PM']I tend to wonder if your first statement is correct.  Hildegard was intensely learned in the study of Theology (as she was raised in a convent and knew the scriptures almost by memory).  Both Julian and Hildegard could read and write in Latin and had access to theological texts and study, etc. (Julian however I would never consider a theologian) I don't know what defines a theologian now, but in her day, Hildegard [i]at [/i]least would have been a Theologian.  HIldegard was in my opinion both a theologian[i] and [/i]a mystic------I do not see why the two should be conflicting or divided.  Most of her writings are centralized on [i]scripture and visions.[/i]

For example she writes, "When I was 42 years and 7 months old a light of tremendous brightness coming from Heaven poured into my entire mind....[i]All at once I was able to taste of the understanding of books-
the Psalter, the Evangelists and the books of the Old and New Testament[/i]."  Why should theology and mysticism be in conflict if both are revelations of God? These understandings were recorded in her first work [i]Scivias[/i].  Hildegard conversed and wrote letters [i]with Bernard of Clairvaux[/i] while composing this work.  St. Bernard sent the unfinished manuscript to Pope Eugenius III who read the book to the cardinals and subsequently endorsed her visions,[i] and writings.  [/i] It just seems to me, that visionary writing will most likely pertain very much to Theology ---so why must there be a conflict between endorsed spiritual writing and theology?

This is a funny side note, Hildegard, was not a feminist in any way...she preached against the corruption of the times as an "[i]effeminate age[/i]"- haha, ouch, lol
[right][snapback]642479[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Theology and mysticism do not necessarily conflict, but they can conflict when a mystic uses improper theological language in order to attempt to express the inexpressability of his or her vision.

While I have not read all of Hildegard's works, from what I have read, it seems that most of her discussion of the feminine relates to Mary and the generative/sustaining power of God. She does, however, characterize the Spirit in a few cases in a female way. This attributing of feminimity to the Holy Spirit is simply incorrect.

Now just because St. Bernard endorsed her visions and writings broadly does not mean that he indorsed as theologically accurate all of the specifics within those writings.

Lets imagine that Hildegard was an emminant theologian, and, for the sake of argument, lets imagine that Julian is also an emminant theologian. Furthermore, lets imagine that St. Bernard and the previously aforementioned theologians (for the sake of argument) all agreed that feminimity could be attributed, in a totally theological and non-mystical way, to the Holy Spirit.

That [i]still[/i] doesn't make it a tradition, let alone a Tradition, or correct. Even if that were the case, I would simply vehemently disagree with the erroneous opinions of a small number of medieval thinkers.

[quote][quote]"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!
How often have I desired to gather your children together as a mother hen gathers her brood under her wings,
and you were not willing!" (Luke 13:34).

Analogous, yes. Christ references himself in feminine terms nonetheless.[/quote][/quote]

If we can rightly attribute feminimity to God on account of this, then we could rightly attribute sheep-ness to Him as well, because he is called Lamb of God. In fact, we would have even more of a right to refer to God-as-sheep because he is referred to as an unblemished lamb far more in Scripture than he is referred to as feminine.

Clearly that is not the case. Thus, just because Scripturally Christ makes an analogy that includes feminimity that does not mean we can [i]actually[/i] attribute feminimity to God in a theological way.

[p0lar_bear]

I'm not backing down from anything I said, but I'm taking myself out of this discussion because it is neither the time or the place.

It is not the time because I just started on this a couple of months ago so it is just a seedling of a thought. I don't have a grasp on it, so I cannot explain it to others. I know it's there, but I can't see it clearly yet.

It's not the place because I should be discussing this with scholars and theologians, not on a board that anyone can read. Since I'm not clear on my idea someone could easily misinterpret what I'm saying and be scandalized by it.


That said, I want to make a few of parting comments

1. Hildegard was a visionary, but she was not really a mystic; she certainly never considered herself one. It much more fitting to call her a theologian. I haven't read enough of Bernard or Julian to make a comment on them.

2. Even if they were mystics, it does not make their thoughts any less valid. Mystical theology is no less a part of our tradition than scholastic. The concepts of mystical theology are no less valid than those of scholastic. Maybe the feminine does belong only in mystical...I doubt it, but that may be the only way we can do it now...but it would still deserve consideration and discussion.

3. Hildegard's references to the feminine divine are definitely not about Mary, they are overtly and inescapably about God. (I've read the majority of what she wrote, well, what's available in english anyway).

[Snowcatpa]

[color=blue][quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 13 2005, 04:16 PM']Gen. 3:
God curses the women with a "desire" for her husband.  But this isn't to be read as a sexual desire.  Haha.  That wouldn't be a curse for her, much less the man.  It referes to a desire for her husbands position.  But God immediatly adds "and he will rule over you."  So it is a curse in that while the women will desire to be in her husbands role, he will rule over her.

So I urge our Phatmass sisters not to allow this curse to overcome you.  Our roles are given to us by God and are precious!  God is our Father, and this is GOOD!  We don't need to make Him our mother.  This is a disordered desire brought about by our own attempt to attain the knowledge of good and evil.
[right][snapback]642181[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 13 2005, 06:33 PM']I don't remember ever saying that there was no order of submission before the sin, for there indeed was.  I was saying that the disorder of submission (its reversal that is) was an effect of Original sin.  I stated that God cursed Eve with a desire for her husband - which is clear in the Book of Genesis.  And I clarified in my second post that this wasn't God chaning Eve (an active Curse - which would mean that God caused a disorder).  It was a curse that Eve recieved by her own action - eating the fruite.  And I don't ever remember saying that Eve was cursed with "submission to her husband, or desire for submission to her husband".  On the contrary, I said that Eve's curse was a desire for her husband to submit to her - the reversal of the original order!  She want's his role, but won't have it. 
[right][snapback]642400[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 13 2005, 06:40 PM']In the begining, the order of things was as St. Paul depicted it:  The husband should be the head of his wife, as Christ is the head of the Church.  Adam had the responsibility to be the authority, the guide for his wife.  He was to do all, even to death, for her.  And she was to submit to him, as the Church submits to Christ.

But in the fall, both Adam and Eve reversed this order.  Eve, therefore, was told by God that she would desire (what she had already chosen to do) her husband (i.e. his authority... his role), but that Adam would rule over her. 

In otherwords... "you will desire to rule over your husband, and he will rule over you."
[right][snapback]642414[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thank you for your very constructive comments That was so nice to see. I definitely noticed this, and I’ve read some interpretations where it definitely offers some profound insights. Namely, that the woman suffers from sin with the pain of childbirth and desire for her husband’s position, but also that the man suffers from sin by “ruling over women” not in the godly sense, but in the “he’s lording it over you” sense. I think in your explanation another key component of original sin is not mentioned here – that of the effects of Original Sin on Adam’s desires and actions.

Male and female, “one nature embodied in two ways for union and communion through a sincere gift of self” is so beautiful. While Eve’s first presence was as a gift for man, Adam joyfully loved her for all of who she was. John Paul II stresses this gift of self – through this gift, we image God. Men and women are equal because they came from the same body, sharing the same nature. However, because Adam opted for silent passivity rather than his gift of self in guarding Eve, and Eve desired that knowledge and power selfishly, without trusting God; the communion was shattered and sin came into the world.

Because most men draw their worth and identity from feeling competent, when sin enters, so does uncertainty and, often, men either retreat into passivity or try to dominate the situation, replacing the mutual self-donation with domination (ruling over women, lording it over women). That’s a different way to look at how original sin takes God’s gift of communion of persons and twists it. This domination often reduces women into being an object, ignoring the spiritual reality of her gifts. In the world, this can translate into not only the objectification of women, but also the devaluing of women when her gifts of spiritual motherhood are not allowed to blossom in realms that men have patriarchally closed to her, not because of the divine plan but because of man’s own sin.

By this, I am not talking about the male priesthood, which is and will always be reserved for men because of the unique nature of the priesthood. This spiritual or clerical role is one to which all men are called two because, among other reasons, it parallels the male body’s offering of his body and blood to create new life in ways that spiritual and physical motherhood are rooted in a female’s ability to bear and nurture this new life. I am referring instead to being able to be spiritual mothers in the world, never at the expense of physical maternity, of course, but allowing women to be part of the world’s institutions so that they can nurture mankind with their uniquely feminine genius. A genius that so often has been neglected in history because of the effects of Original Sin.

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 13 2005, 05:28 PM']You are right to say these things.  And you are right in knowing that the burden is indeed lighter.  But look around at the "feminist" movement, and you will see how this curse at the fall has gripped so many women.

God's decisive words to the woman after the first sin express the kind of relationship which has now been introduced between man and woman: “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gn 3:16). It will be a relationship in which love will frequently be debased into pure self-seeking, in a relationship which ignores and kills love and replaces it with the yoke of domination of one sex over the other.
[right][snapback]642294[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I completely agree with you! In my opinion, the rise of feminism has a direct correlation to the sins of women that reflect Eve’s part in Original Sin. But I also think it’s important to include the male role within this rise of feminism as well. As Semper pointed out:

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 06:57 PM']i don't really think any woman inherently desires to[i] rule[/i] over men....woman desire[i] love [/i]from man...and if a wman is loved by a man, she'll do anything he wants.....is this not obvious?  the [b]curse is that, in men still being over woman in authoruty.....she will still be UNDER him,[/b] THAT is NOT the curse......but [b]his authority over her will become corrupted and his authority will no longer be an authority of love and sacrifice, in that he will use his authority for his own end[/b], since the woman's desire is still for the man...and she will always desire him....but she is cursed in that his authority is tainted......which may lead some woman to think they need to become a caricature of men in seeking apporval....notice this..... A WOMAN, no matter how feminist, WILL STILL MAKE HERSELF by choice SUBSERVIENT TO A MAN'S LUST....i think this is the curse...[b]she desires him, even though he abuses her.....[/b]
[right][snapback]642438[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is where you and I click Semper That’s exactly what I was trying to talk about. Man’s curse is also a focus. Lording his authority over women, inhibiting them to fulfill their vocations as spiritual mothers, instead of using his authority to serve women through his own gift of self and spiritual priesthood, negatively affects him as well. We all have true freedom in our unique vocations, but it is very easy for me to see how feminists misunderstand this vocation and find entrapment in it. [/color]

[Snowcatpa]

[color=green]
[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:18 PM']Gimme a break!  Do you want to refer to God as He/She?  It? Heavenly Mother/Father?  Parent?
What horrors feminism has visited upon us!  Some rad feminists already have crucified female Jesuses and the the like!

We have absolutely no reason to reject the revealed language God used tyo refer to Himself in order to satisfy the demands of modern feminists (who will never be satiisfied anyway.) 

No good will come of this nonsense.  This is just political correctness trumping Divine Truth.
[right][snapback]642114[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is very harsh, Socrates . I don’t like where “Feminism” has taken us either, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t initially reacting to a very real evil in the world, the abuse by men directly because of Adam’s part in original sin, so that he, as a man, would Lord his power over them, women. Feminists sinned in a way corresponding to Eve’s part in original sin as well… but remember… Eve sinned because of Adam’s oversight… he wasn’t fulfilling his duties as a man. It seems logical to me that this manifestation of original sin plays a part in rise of feminism: the oversight of men in their treatment and guidance of women.

And linking Polar Bear’s attempts at constructive discussion about this issue to the New Age, Matriarchal crucifixions of a female Jesus is a little extreme, don’t you think? I don’t think Polar Bear’s trying to satisfy the demands of modern feminists or trying to be politically correct. This may not conform to how you understand God or be an issue of contention for you in your faith, but that does not give license to degrade the conversation.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:33 PM']Still disagree with you.  Poetically personalizing an attribute of God (wisdom) as feminine is not the same as referring to God Himself as feminine.  The Scott Hahn thing was delt with before and is actually a misquote (He does not actually say that the Holy Spirit is feminine).  And referring to Christ as feminine is just wrong!

We work too hard to appease the feminists, while at the same time driving men from the Church.  How many men want to follow a feminine Christ or an androgynous God?
[right][snapback]642134[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Throughout history, women have always been the ones who have attended spiritual gatherings more…While I don’t disagree with your position, as I think we might have talked about before, that’s not a strong point to end on. I agree with Polar Bear on this one. We must work on bringing men to the Church at the expense of women? I know that’s not what you mean, you mean at the expense of feminists, but it comes off that way. We cannot work on bringing believers to the Church without the pursuit of Truth, not the pursuit of what appeals to men… or women.


[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 13 2005, 04:54 PM']In regards to your questions, the central issue is that God revealed Himself as Father, and His Son became incarnate as a man.  And most women I know are quite happy following male leadership - it's only feminists that have a problem with this! 

However, portraying Christ (a man) as being somehow feminine or womanly, is quite problematic.  It's bad enough that we have all those effeminate-looking holy-card-style pictures of Jesus.  What good would speaking of Christ as feminine do?  Who wants to worship or follow a "girly-man" or some divine sissy?  Quite frankly, I don't buy this!  (Sorry if this sounds irreverent, but we must look at the practical consequences of attempting to feminize Christ on the human imagination.)

God revealed Himself as Father, and we should accept this.  What good would using feminine language to describe God do?  While it is true that God transcends gender, focusing on Him as both masculine and feminine, or completely beyond gender, makes Him seem in the imagination either androgynous or bisexual, or an impersonal being or force.  Neither is how God revealed HImself, or How He wishes us to relate to Him.
[right][snapback]642234[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 13 2005, 05:31 PM']Not sure exactly what you're trying to get at here, but I see nothing in the gospels to indicate that Christ was weak or feminine.  Jesus allowed Himself to take on weak human nature (He was able to suffer physical exhaustion and weakness like any other man - as He experienced the Passion), but this does not mean he was particularly weak or unmanly.  So it is highly unlikely that He was some soft, effeminate, androgynous type, as portrayed in those sappy pastel holy-card images.
[right][snapback]642301[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How you're devaluing the feminine gifts of your sisters in Christ Socrates! Who wants to worship a “girly-man” or “some divine sissy”? I don’t think anyone here will answer affirmatively to that question, but it's as if you're implying being a “sissy” or being “girly” is so terrible. It might not be highest in the Order of Authority, but that does not mean femininity is so terrible. As is mentioned in this thread, God is at least referred to at times with feminine metaphors (like the mother hen), and that does not take away from his Masculinity. Rather, it strengthens and humanizes (or deifizes….hehe, **insert better word here**) those actions. [/color]

[Snowcatpa]

[color=red][quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:37 PM']Referring to God as Masculine is more accurate, because in the Order of Authority, male is higher than female. Understanding that all of our words fall short in reference to God, we must never permit ourselves to use anything but the most fitting language concerning him. If the term "feminine" connotes being lower in the Order of Authority, and a subordinate role in the theology of Headship, then we must not refer to God as such if we can refer to Him in a more fitting manner.
[right][snapback]642047[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:17 PM']Moreover, we can justifiably call God Father because, as I said previously, masculinity pertains to theology of Headship and being the highest in the Order of Authority. Refering to "God's feminimity" or, worse "God the Mother" in a non-mystical way is totally improper and unfitting, because it would attribute to God a subordination in the Order of Authority.
[right][snapback]642112[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Jeff’s comment here struck me pertinent to explain in a different way why I don't quite know that the references to God as feminine could be completely brushed aside as just analogies (like the sheep one ). For the sake of argument, this explanation focuses on the error of attributing to God any subordinate role. Yet, we are only discussing the realm of the Order of Authority. Could there not be other realms where the female is not the subordinate role? How does the masculinity of God play into that? Certainly there are other Orders besides Authority and the female must not be subordinate in ALL of them… or else how can she be in the image of God at all? In this realm, perhaps, in which the male is subordinate and the female is the head, would it then not logically lead to potentially limiting God? If we were to exclude the feminine from God, in areas other than his powers to act as feminine (as Jeff pointed out), then you would be assigning him a subordinate role, which is impossible. For instance, I am completely making this up, so everyone can attack it but it is just a fly from the seat of my pants kind of example, there could be the Order of Intimacy. As amy pointed out early on in the thread, the Catechism explains:

"God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature...

Clearly in this case, the physical connection God shares with his people is greater exemplified by the capacities of the female, as the physical creation of something outside of himself is exemplified by the capacities of the male. But because the Order of Authority is discussed more because it’s from the perspective of men, this Order of Intimacy is not even a question. Men’s subordination in an alternate realm of functioning isn’t brought up. I’m not arguing here that we shouldn’t call God masculine because that is indeed his Revelation and dominant functioning, however, the role Intimacy or other realms play in this that the woman may surpass the man in calls into question that God only acts through the “actions” of the female or not considering the feminine in God. [/color]

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple]
[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Jul 14 2005, 12:59 AM']Snowcatpa,  Forgive me dear sister I did not mean to hurt you or put you down,  this was never my intention.  It is hard to see and understand what you really mean when its just written, and I can not hear the voice with feeling behind what it is your saying.  Please understand I'm a every black and white (in your case purple and white hehe) person I believe what people tell me and the way they tell it. [right][snapback]642762[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
How kindly you answered me! Thank you . Forgive me if I repeat myself here or get lost in the following explanations, this thread has certainly increased in length and I keep forgetting what I have written! Hehe.

Initially, I just wanted to know the Catholic Church’s arguments for the Masculinity of God and I was trying to recall arguments I had heard against them in order to understand the Church’s retorts and why she was right. My developing understanding of the truth was most likely not evident from the posts, so, if I were you, I would have interpreted some of my comments as such, especially for my lack of explaining how I think differently after those posts were put up.

What has struck me from the beginning, however, was the feelings of inadequacy some Catholic or Christian women feel. Yes, we all agree that understood properly, Catholicism is the most freeing and the only true way to live. However, what is it that pushes them away? What is it that, in sin, seems to be hindering me from understanding? What leads to this misunderstanding? What sin is there on women’s part that leads them to think in a way that is wrong? Why have I thought this way? What sins have men committed that put down women and made them feel that the Catholic Church was doing this, and not the individuals within it?
[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 20 2005, 12:21 PM'][color=purple] , I don't know how to answer the argument about women always feeling lower or less worthy than men in Christianity [/color]
[right][snapback]616755[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 24 2005, 06:57 PM'][color=purple]it just jarrs me that God is a Man and not a Woman, in any terminology and that tradition, even though I believe it is right, holds us to that. It doesn't matter on the surface, you're right... it's so much more important to focus on our relationship with God and all that he is given us. But in a very real world, that fundamental distinction has some pretty strong implications for women.  [/color]
[right][snapback]622073[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I have only just begun to really think about the topic… so my thoughts on it are underdeveloped at best. Forgive me if I ramble. Semper is so blessed to never have felt this feeling of inadequacy; rather that she wants men to fill their role of authority in her life. But it has sometimes, in some situations, struck me harshly, which is difficult to admit. And often, to my chagrin, it is odd to me that others can't see the effects this truth can have in a sinful world.

This is so difficult for me to explain because it truly affects me. My heart aches trying to discern why this subject is so painful for me… as I attempt to wretch out the pride and jealousy, but more than anything… tearful confusion. Not only at not understanding my place in God’s eyes and how the Church explains it to me, but that those I endeavor to discuss this issue with inevitably either find it a matter of doubt and lack of faith that I am having difficulty accepting Christ’s revelation, looking upon me as having feelings and reactions characteristic of a feminist-influenced culture, as though my reaction is completely unwarranted and so far off the mark as to not merit serious discussion. How could I ever feel inadequate in the warm embrace of Christ’s love? Or…with non-Catholic, less religious friends, that the Church is of course the seed of patriarchy and bigotry, and the male-centered nature of it all is cause for drastic change… How could I ever feel adequate in the exclusionary embrace of a man-made religion?

From my experience, no one wants to be put down, or told what to do in a domineering way. (which is often how authority is, though we all would likely agree that true leadership is in service to others, not domineering over them). Women are subordinate in the hierarchy of authority and this often translates in understanding as being subordinate in being valued because of the focus on the power and greatness of authority. She is the lesser in this realm… not the greater.

It's as if...you are told you are equal in dignity, value and worth to a man… Both of you are made in the image and likeness of God, and He is far greater than what we could ever imagine…God is beyond God himself. God rules over all, granted he rules through service and love, but he is the ultimate pinnacle in the Order of Authority. God is male, Jesus is male – His action of creation, giving his “body and blood” to create something outside of himself that never existed before (an action made easier for us to understand through the physical make-up of men, themselves) is truly awesome and divine. This great power, this great awesomeness, this great miracle… is reflective of Man. God rules as a Man, and women, like humans, are subordinate.

Maybe the problem is that too often, we see subordination as being equated with being lesser. We are the greater for the service to our God, fulfilling our subordinate role to God himself… but we are never God (and goodness, I would never be so proud to claim that!) . So God, the highest in the position of Authority, is the greatest. So too is man, the highest position of authority on earth between the sexes, the greatest. Woman in the analogy represents the submission of all mankind to the greater glory of God, just as she submits to her earthly better, Man. Even insofar as God is nurturing or caring or the like, those are only his feminine actions, not reflective of his Divine Being. Thus, Women are not Godly… we represent the actions of God… not his being or his indescribable reality. Can you not see the hurt that can enter a heart if the explanation is left merely at that? I am left knowing that although I am made in the image and likeness of God… I am the lowest on earth above the animals.

Then, I hear stories at mass that center around other men, see only holy men (I grew up in a place with few nuns around, and those that were were plain-clothed), and read that I am to cover my head, be the glory of men, the helper of man. Then in my world, my sisters are abused and neglected, told that this or that will make them free. Women in the Middle East or Africa wearing burqas, being abused, suffering from genital mutilation, refused medicine or equal pay - all justified because of Man’s aaffirmation and right to the role of leader. I wrote before about women silently suffering under abusive husbands who are supposed to be the Godly leaders of their lives, or being ignored in classrooms and discussions because they’re submitting to the outward leadership of their male counterparts.

For then also, we see some good things that our mothers have done. Allowed us to be able to go in the workforce, where we can live out our spiritual motherhood, something that our traditional culture, including our Catholic culture, always seemed to shun for focus on the physical aspect of our maternal vocation. We are able to reach out in the world in positive, Catholic ways that we never could before because of feminists. We can vote, have better health care and child support, the ability to be protected in cases of abuse and domestic violence, all of which exist because of Man's part in original sin. Yet he is shocked when feminists then are led into Eve's transgression? Men are not God, some abuse their vocations because of sin and this has a great impact on the actions of women today… why they do what they do…why the feminist movement even began. As I wrote before, I know that most things in society are wrong… but how far and in what respect?

Many of my doubts are of the earthy realm, how to respond? How to live a good life? Is the Church really not influenced still by subtle patriarchy? Is Spiritual motherhood still not being valued in places that could use it the most?

I must admit you are probably right about being jealous (referring to my example with my brother), but who wouldn’t be jealous when they don’t understand why Men are reflective of God and they are not? Especially when men use this reflection as license to lord their own authority over women in the earlthy realm?

There is, vocational explanations to the contrary, the implication that I am inferior and no one wants to be. It is a complicated - “women aren’t reflective of God” persay, yet they’re still made in the image of God and equal in dignity and worth to men. I know it might come easy to a lot of our scholars on here, but that is some ADVANCED understanding from my perspective.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Jul 14 2005, 12:59 AM']As too "you are saying" I am not the one "saying" what you should just accept it, no questions ask and believe.  It is Jesus Christ and His bride Mother Church.  Still maybe I've missed understoud you again, I am a man, and men find it hard to understand women at all. [right][snapback]642762[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hehe… that made me smile I see why you say that, but I really don’t think Jesus and the Church are asking me to accept it, no questions asked. Semper had a theory that we could all generally go through the natural process of coming up with all the great heresies in your head, just naturally thinking about God and the world, and why things are the way they are. And then find out what’s wrong with them. Any amount of questioning I have for my faith is all in pursuit of further truth and understanding and a desire to know God. The faith is True and any amount of questioning will never bring it down, it can make it more beautiful and real. Faith, Meditation and Mystery are huge too… but so is questioning. In educational psychology, this is key. You need to make the truth your own (meaning personalize it in ways that you can understand and that reveal truth to you, not changing it), internalize the truths, relate to them, interpret them, make meaning of them in your mind and soul, in order to be truly connected to the Truth, and the Truth is God.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Jul 14 2005, 12:59 AM']As for "Stay in the kitchen because you’re supposed to be”…I said nothing like that, who the heck would wanna be in the kithcen that smells of elderberries!  But if God told me so I would, and do.  If I dont help cook I dont eat! 

See, Vocation and whom God is, are very diffrent my dear Sister in Christ, you may desrin what your vocation is where it be politics or work force or hey  life as a Nun!  However God does not let you desirn on what He is, "I AM WHO AM" no questions asked.  And I thought that was the question being asked, the question that God be a He or she.
[right][snapback]642762[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hehe. Very true! I used that example, though, because that was something that [i]Men[/i] said to women… not that God said to woman. I was poorly attempting to illustrate a parallel. Instead of saying, God is Male… Period… I think I’d learn it better if one would say, “Learn and Love God and how he is revealed through being Male in xyz ways and in more ways than we could even know! And learn how that relates to your own life and how that changes how you live your life in whatever you do in your vocation.”

If God told me to stay in the kitchen, I would! But he didn’t. He told me in many subtle and obvious ways to live my maternal vocation as a woman. And that is not always in the kitchen. This pertains to the discussion because of how men sometimes tell women what to do out of sinful authority, not self-sacrificial authority… and this leads to a greater abuse and degrading of women

You didn’t tell me to stay in the kitchen, but I was hoping to give you an analogy to show you why “be content with what God/the church/We tell you without any questions” sounds so abrasive to me. You never said stay in the kitchen. I’d have beat you up for that. There is much to be said for accepting God as he says he is, but that doesn’t mean we don’t’ try to understand why, how, for what reason, and how this is good for us. . I was also merely trying to show how there’s faith, believing what God says is true, that He is who He IS… but there’s also understanding, and they go hand in hand. Jesus says that the Eucharist is his body and blood – we are growing in our faith more when we understand fully the role the Eucharist plays in our lives and why. It’s the same way for the Masculinity of God. You learn the implications, the nuances, what that means. God saying he is God is purely faith. Giving attributes to God, and using human terms to understand him is not something that’s so unclosed to discussion. Some may not question, but some may need to. That’s how they grow in faith. That’s how I grow in faith. I question, internalize, and grow.
[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Jul 14 2005, 12:59 AM']Who are these  feminist?  Are they your friends you wish to convert to the truth or are they  feminist arguments?  If they are just feminist arguments there is no need to have them answered, why?  Feminism is just a form of Humanism a kinda worship of the self.  Feminism is  a rejection of men, and since God calls Himself a "He" God as well, well maybe not god(s) but The Ture God yes... and do not forget Feminism brought rise the Abortion Holocaust 50 million babies killed since 1973.  Murdered in the name of Feminism.  Feminism is dead and dieing it dies everyday as long as Abortion is legal.  Feminism is agaist the narture of God and therefor God, and if they abort themselves the will not procreate and die off.  The sooner the better.  So if it is  feminist agruments you have there is no need to answer.  It would be a waste of your soul and time. [right][snapback]642762[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
With the utmost respect, I whole-heartedly disagree. Heresies in the world provide the Church and the people that comprise it the opportunity to elucidate Church teachings on things that have already been understand and use that knowledge to preserve and defend the Truth. I do have friends and family members that believe in many feminist principles. I would guess that most of us know many people seduced by their teachings. Part of preserving the Truth of Christ is defending against those who slander you. We do not cease conversation with Atheists because they are dying in their souls for an unconscious want of God. Rather, as Christians, we are all called to be missionaries in spreading the Truth and the Light of Christ’s love, in word and action. In the same way, I do not think it prudent to forget or ignore feminist arguments. I think it appropriate to learn their arguments, and the truths of the church to be better able to show them the error of their ways and lead them to God, the Truth and the Light of our lives. Not saying that I’ll be able to do all of this very well, but all are called to do what they can. [/color]

[Snowcatpa]

[color=orange] Now I must stop writing for I am quickly running out of colors.... [/color]

[Apotheoun]

Just for the sake of clarification: In the East all theology is mystical theology, because theology is experiential, not definitional or conceptual. That being said, mystical theology itself is not about receiving "new" private revelations, nor is it about adding to or perfecting the deposit of faith; instead it is about experiencing God, i.e., it is about participating in the uncreated divine energies and being divinized by grace. In other words, it is about salvation.