Women as priests..(*cont from before)

[Myles Domini]

It would do your friend good to read John Paul II's Apostolic Letter '[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html"]Mulieris Dignitatem[/url]'. 'A Father who keeps His promises' by Scott Hahn would also be of assistance. Why? Because together both works explain how the priesthood is proper to fatherhood and how God does not abolish covenants but fulfil them. In spite of their equality and Eve's status as another 'I' to borrow from the late great Pontiff when God swears the first scriptural covenant he swears it with Adam. Adam is the mediator, Adam is the one to whom the blessings are told, the conditions given etc.etc. God in His primeval design makes covenant mediatorship an aspect of masculinity. This was true prior to the fall of man and its true thereafter.

God's subsequent covenants do not abolish the fundamental covenant structure but allow prior covenants to reach fulfilment by being enlarged and extended. At one stage we have a family covenant with Adam, then a kinsmans covenant with Noah, followed by a tribal one with Abraham, a national one with Moses, a regal one with David each time the covenant being superimposed upon the previous one as a logical outflow and extension of it.

Likewise in the New Covenant where the New Adam comes to restore the likeness of Himself to His image He does not come to abolish but fulfil. He does not forget the curses of the law but becomes the curse of the law for our salvation (Gal 3:13), He does not do away with the need to offer a perfect Lamb in sacrifice (Jn 1:29). In short one must think not that He came to abolish but to fulfil and in His fulfilment Christ restores things as they should be, He lifts the covenant punishments from us so that we can partake in the blessings promised to our first parents without ripping up the very basis upon which the covenant is founded mediatorship through masculinity.

Your friend does not seem to percieve the covenantal nature of God's dealings with man from the first moment of our existence. Thus she fails to grasp that the role of Adam (Man) as covenant mediator has always been part of God's plan for humanity even before original sin. Moreover, she doesn't seem to have an apt grasp of what original sin actually did to human beings when she speaks of 'full personhood' I wonder if she aptly grasps what it is she is saying. Since her subsequent explication doesn't match with the abiding understanding of Sacred Tradition.

Truly I would recommend that she read '[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html"]Mulieris Dignitatem[/url]' to see how in particular the relationship between man and woman was impacted by the fall and what the redemption of Jesus as spoken of in verses like Gal 3:27-28 does to the aforesaid relationship. Moreover, to get her clued up on scriptural covenants 'A Father who keeps His promises' would be a great place to start.

Bless...

[Fides_et_Ratio]

ditto to Myles' suggestion with regards to JPII's Apostolic Letter (it's a good read, and it's not too long).

The true dignity of being a woman is not found in acting like a man/doing what men do... but in being WOMAN! Is it a grave injustice to say to a man, "you cannot be a mother." No, of course not, it's biologically impossible for him to be mother. Why, then, do we object to telling women, "you cannot be a father."?

[thessalonian]

Actually he created MAN in the image of God interestingly enough. It does not say women.

Gen.1
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Paul confirms this in 1 Cor

[7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

Now woman being in the image of man is also the image of God and the family is the image of God as well.

She is quite clearly confusing having different roles with being contrary to equality. Also she is confusing being restored with being the full image of God which would be God.


1Cor.11
[3] But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.


Males have characteristics that reflect God and so do females. Being made in the image and likeness of God does not mean we are completely in the image and likeness of God. What we reflect of God certainly is restored. She provides NO evidence that any women was placed in any kind of an ordained capacity.

1Tim.2
[11] Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.
[12] I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
[14] and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
[15] Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
1Tim.5

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='975960' date='May 9 2006, 08:47 AM']Paul confirms this in 1 Cor
[7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. [/quote]
I'm not picking an argument.

I'm always hesitant to use that passage from Corinthians because of the latter half of it... of all of Paul's arguments (no offense, St. Paul!) this seems like his weakest one because he goes on to say:

[14] Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him,
[15] but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
[16] If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

So, is her hair a "covering" enough? And v. 16 sounds like Paul is saying to just follow the custom of the area (basically "oh well, whatever")... the NAB translates v. 16 as "If anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God."

So it sounds like Paul is going back and forth. I've always been confused.

What does Navarre say about this verse? Phat? Any other good commentaries?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]I think you're missing matters of understanding which are core to the Gospel (yes, I know you say you are merely presenting the argument of the Catholic Church, but that doesn't excuse you from thinking through these things):
1)The twelve apostles were male in order to represent the patrilocal tribes of Israel, however, what Christ does by including all those previously excluded (see Isaiah 56.1-8) is to make all (regardless of social distinctions) fully sons in responsibility and priviledge (so that therefore in Christ there is no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female; see Galatians 3).
2)You also miss the point that this new community created by Christ is consequently empowered and gifted by the Spirit in like manner-- without regard to social distinctions (see Joel 3, Acts 2, etc.). Therefore, some are prophets, teachers, apostles, etc., though the text does not specify tasks within the Body as being divided on the basis of social distinctions.[/quote]

Yes, Christ destroyed the social distinctions of His time. There's only one problem, the social distinction between the sexes flows from a natural distinction. Christ did not destroy natural distinctions, so they remain. Since no one can say that the sacraments build on social order, but only on nature, this argument is irrelevant.

[Sojourner]

It seems to me that churches, both Catholic and Protestant, do a decent job of talking about what it DOESN’T mean to be a woman and not enough about what it DOES mean to be a woman. I grew up hearing that women couldn’t be pastors, couldn’t be deacons, couldn’t be elders, couldn’t be song leaders ... but beyond being wives and mothers, there wasn’t much thought given to how women should function in the church.

The role of women in the church is one that’s been debated off and on over the years, but I think it’s slightly more a problem in Protestant realms than in Catholic because Catholics at least have the framework in place for honoring the good of womanhood. Protestants don’t – there’s no (or very little) tradition of religious women, there’s no (or very little) reverence for Mary, and there’s no (or very little) tradition of esteeming holy women of the past. Growing up in a very conservative Protestant church, this was something I really struggled with, because I’m now 30 and have no children and am not married, so how am I fulfilling my calling as a woman?

Now, I never wanted to be a pastor (or priest for that matter) but I did want to understand how to be a woman in the fullest way possible without a husband and children. Protestantism is, by and large, silent on this topic. There’s no affirmation of the goodness of woman, only of the goodness of man (through placing men in prime leadership roles, etc.) leaving women to try to figure out on their own what’s what when it comes to being a vibrant member of a church. It’s really no surprise that many women have come to the conclusion that pastoral leadership/preaching/etc. is the way to do this ... and in many denominations, men have acquiesced because they themselves haven’t thought through the meaning of womanhood either. I think examples we have of women pastors and priests are due more to guilt and laziness than an actual affirmation of the essential goodness of being woman.

We see the shades of the same thing in the Catholic church, also, in my view, as a reaction to a lack of affirmation of the goodness of being woman. But, I think the Catholic church is unique in that it HAS historically affirmed women (not as well as could have been done, but still). The Catholic church has recognized the contributions of women, and reverenced the life-giving and nurturing nature of womanhood in a way Protestants, by and large, have not. As Myles referenced, 'Mulieris Dignitatem' is a great example of this. We can do more to understand and affirm the goodness of womanhood but we have a great start.

[thessalonian]

Sojourner,

Great post. I honestly think if you give him permission the rev should share it with his friend!

[Sojourner]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='976162' date='May 9 2006, 11:55 AM']
Sojourner,

Great post. I honestly think if you give him permission the rev should share it with his friend!
[/quote]
Thanks!

Yeah, share away. It's public domain.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='976162' date='May 9 2006, 11:55 AM']
Sojourner,

Great post. I honestly think if you give him permission the rev should share it with his friend!
[/quote]
and from the "connoisseur of human folly" no less!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Sojourner, that was a good thing to point out. Thanks.

[kateri05]

[quote name='morostheos' post='972111' date='May 5 2006, 07:06 AM']
I think a good book for some background would be "The Privilege of Being a Woman" by Alice von Hildebrand. It's a short read, and pretty much all of it pertains to the subject, although not directly.
[/quote]


this book is EXCELLENT (i should know since i gave my copy to claire ) on diving into the meaning of real womanhood. soj, it is a definite treatment of what women SHOULD do and hardly even touches the shouldn't

very empowering in a humbling, Marian way

[Sojourner]

[quote name='kateri05' post='977521' date='May 10 2006, 12:13 PM']
this book is EXCELLENT (i should know since i gave my copy to claire ) on diving into the meaning of real womanhood. soj, it is a definite treatment of what women SHOULD do and hardly even touches the shouldn't

very empowering in a humbling, Marian way
[/quote]
I am definitely going to have to check it out. I like Alice von Hildebrand.

[uruviel]

well, I don't have allot of knowlege on this, but I do know that Christ gave the power to MEN to forgive sins and do transubstansiation. The apostles. MEN not women.