- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThis is the Pope's argument:
That is irrelevant to the question I am asking.
The Pope's argument claims that women cannot be priests because Christ had no women disciples.
I am asking why, if that argument is coherent, can there be Chinese priests.
26. Against the broad background of the "great mystery" expressed in the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church, it is possible to understand adequately the calling of the "Twelve". In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behaviour, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time. Consequently, the assumption that he called men to be apostles in order to conform with the widespread mentality of his times, does not at all correspond to Christ's way of acting. "Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men" (Mt 22:16). These words fully characterize Jesus of Nazareth's behaviour. Here one also finds an explanation for the calling of the "Twelve". They are with Christ at the Last Supper. They alone receive the sacramental charge, "Do this in remembrance of me" (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24), which is joined to the institution of the Eucharist. On Easter Sunday night they receive the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins: "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained" (Jn 20:23).
But also,
"Since Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, linked it in such an explicit way to the priestly service of the Apostles, it is legitimate to conclude that he thereby wished to express the relationship between man and woman, between what is "feminine" and what is "masculine". It is a relationship willed by God both in the mystery of creation and in the mystery of Redemption. It is the Eucharist above all that expresses the redemptive act of Christ the Bridegroom towards the Church the Bride. This is clear and unambiguous when the sacramental ministry of the Eucharist, in which the priest acts "in persona Christi", is performed by a man. This explanation confirms the teaching of the Declaration Inter Insigniores, published at the behest of Paul VI in response to the question concerning the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood.50"
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html
John Paul identifies that while women were present in his ministry, he did not select them as his closest disciples. This is obviously significant to him that Christ himself consciously excluded women (but obviously not Chinese people). John Paul's other reasoning is that the Eucharist is an expression of a male and female symbology between Christ and the Church that would not be possible with a woman.
13 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KDid he select any Chinese as his closest disciples?
John Paul identifies that while women were present in his ministry, he did not select them as his closest disciples. This is obviously significant to him that Christ himself consciously excluded women (but obviously not Chinese people).
Also, what would happen if a priest got a sex change?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeI am not saying that the teaching is not infallible, I am only illustrating that Humanae Vitae is perceived to be ambiguous. As I said in my frist post to you.
A papal encyclical is not viewed as a formal "ex-cathedra" pronouncement. It is certainly not seen this way by the Magisterium of the Church.
It is however wrong to suggest that condoms are impermissable. As I highlighted before high level clergymen do accept the use of condoms if absolutely necasarry for the protection from transmission of AIDS. This is consistent with Catholic ethics. While murder is infallibly declared evil, it is a contigent evil which does not apply in instances of self-defense or just war. The same with contraception. I am was not trying to dispute that sex not open to procreation is not recognized by the Church as an infallible evil. I only want to show that there is a certain amount of casuistry and inconsistency in what Pius' Humanae Vitae means.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDid he select any Chinese as his closest disciples?
Did he select any Chinese as his closest disciples?
Also, what would happen if a priest got a sex change?
Since no Chinese people are found in the the scripture in relation to Jesus' ministry, it can only be assumed that they weren't present in his ministry. He couldn't choose them. Since women were present it can only be assumed that Jesus did not want them as his closest disciples, and hence priests.
Also, what would happen if a priest got a sex change?
No idea. I suppose that the Church would still recognize this priest as a man.
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by Conrau KSo what? That's a red herring we weren't talking about condoms, we were talking about contraception. And that statement you quoted was roundly criticized by other high officials of the Vatican even though it would arguably fall under this part of Humanae Vitae:
I am not saying that the teaching is not infallible, I am only illustrating that Humanae Vitae is perceived to be ambiguous. As I said in my frist post to you.
It is however wrong to suggest that condoms are impermissable. As I highlighted before high level clergymen do accept the use of condoms if absolutely necasarry for the protection from transmissi ...[text shortened]... hat there is a certain amount of casuistry and inconsistency in what Pius' Humanae Vitae means.
Lawful Therapeutic Means
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by no1marauderCondoms are a type of contraception, right?
So what? That's a red herring we weren't talking about condoms, we were talking about contraception. And that statement you quoted was roundly criticized by other high officials of the Vatican even though it would arguably fall under this part of Humanae Vitae:
Lawful Therapeutic Means
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illi ...[text shortened]... t there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)
I don't know what statements that I apparently quoted you are referring to. Nor why you consider the section of Lawful Therapeutic Means to be relevant.
13 Mar 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KAre you familiar with the Principle of Double Effect? If not, you should become so since the RCC believes in it.
Condoms are a type of contraception, right?
I don't know what statements that I apparently quoted you are referring to. Nor why you consider the section of Lawful Therapeutic Means to be relevant.
Condoms have several uses. They can't be intended for contraception under ANY circumstances according to the RCC. It's arguable, though far from clear, that they might be used as a disease preventation devices IF one of the spouses had AIDS (the quote you gave from a Cardinal earlier) under the reasoning of the section of Humanae Vitae I gave you - though even that seems against what most Vatican officials believe.
EDIT: This quote:
Also in November 2003, cardinal Barragan of the Pontifical Council for Health Care said:
"The doctrine of the Catholic Church is very clear. To defend one's life against an aggressor, one can even kill. So a wife, whose husband is infected with AIDS and who insists on marrital relations with her, and might pass on the virus which would kill her, can defend her life by using a condom." (Vatican Looking at Collaboration with Global Fund, Zenit news, 6th of November 2003)
She can use a condom to defend her life, but not as contraception in Barragan's formulation. But even this is controversial in the RCC.
13 Mar 07
1 edit
Compare Cardinal's Barragan's statement regarding a wife being forced to submit to the "unjust aggression" of a husband with AIDS as justifying condom use in those extreme circumstances with his more general recent comments regarding AIDs:
In remarks to the conference, Barragan reiterated Church teaching on how to prevent the spread of HIV, saying individuals must "have the courage to proclaim clearly chastity" in a society in which sex is part of the pursuit of pleasure.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/20/europe/EU_GEN_Vatican_AIDS.php
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt's not irrelevant simply because you say so. The Church teaches that it has no authority to ordain priestesses because it cannot be inferred from Christ's words or deeds that he intended that to be the case. It does, however, have the authority to ordain Chinese men because that can be inferred from the Great Commission.
That is irrelevant to the question I am asking.
The Pope's argument claims that women cannot be priests because Christ had no women disciples.
I am asking why, if that argument is coherent, can there be Chinese priests.
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI have answered both your questions efficiently.
That's not what I'm asking. Why are you avoiding answering my questions?
Would Jesus prefer that Protestants not take Communion at all?
Or, if you want me to state the obvious, I think that Jesus would prefer that Protestants not receive Communion in a Catholic service and vice-versa.
13 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat should the Church err on the side of banning the ordination of priestesses simply it *cannot be inferred* from Christ's words or deeds that He intended them to be ordinated?
It's not irrelevant simply because you say so. The Church teaches that it has no authority to ordain priestesses because it cannot be inferred from Christ's words or deeds that he intended that to be the case. It does, however, have the authority to ordain Chinese men because that can be inferred from the Great Commission.
Surely, there are a lot of things that *cannot* be inferred from Christ's words or deeds. Should they all they banned?
Shouldn't the Church only seek to ban what *can* be inferred from Christ's words or deeds to be something Christ intended *not* to be case?
An why doesn't the Great Commission extend to people with vaginas as well as yellow skin?
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by NemesioIf that is true, I do not know one single Roman Catholic. And I come from a country where the official statistics claim that over 90% of the population is Roman Catholic.
I do not believe that being Roman Catholic means that you can elect to reject an encyclical. That
is, you cannot simultaneously be a Roman Catholic and, knowing the content of said encyclical,
utilize contraception. To be Roman Catholic is to accept the encyclical (and others, of course).
Otherwise, you are explicitly denying the authority of ...[text shortened]... riage, abortions, or any other matter upon which Rome has expressed a
moral opinion?
Nemesio
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeAs with many Church teachings, there is both a negative and a positive argument here. The negative one, which you're alluding to, is the fact that Christ never ordained women Himself; nor can such an intent be inferred. The positive one, which Conrau provided earlier, is the understanding of Christ's relationship with His Bride, the Church, and what it means for a priest standing in persona Christi.
What should the Church err on the side of banning the ordination of priestesses simply it *cannot be inferred* from Christ's words or deeds that He intended them to be ordinated?
Surely, there are a lot of things that *cannot* be inferred from Christ's words or deeds. Should they all they banned?
Shouldn't the Church only seek to ban what *can* b ...[text shortened]...
An why doesn't the Great Commission extend to people with vaginas as well as yellow skin?
The Great Commission extended the ministry that Christ lived amongst the Jews to non-Jews. This includes, for instance, the sacrament of holy orders -- which Christ Himself did not administer to women (nor did the Apostles -- who knew far more about what Christ said and did than are recorded in the Gospels).
13 Mar 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerWould Jesus prefer that Protestants not receive Communuion in a Protestant service?
I have answered both your questions efficiently.
Or, if you want me to state the obvious, I think that Jesus would prefer that Protestants not receive Communion in a Catholic service and vice-versa.