The thread has given me eye strain. Very confusing, and a lot of scolding and bickering. 

Arguments that refer only to what other people have said, and then also quoting yet other people's words - end up using a circular 'logic' which becomes quite confusing to follow. Those arguments tend to unravel. Referring ad nauseum to various church fathers who debated each other, who agreed with whom, clerical versus anti-clericalism -  I really have no idea what most of it was about. Truth is truth .... literalism and legalism are smokescreens. 

Truth does not need to yell. It simply exists. Those who listen with the heart will find it.


I continue not to understand why there is such disagreement on the ordination of women. Women have always been priests - in some form or other. Perhaps not obviously, nor was it always the 'popular' thing to do. But women have always served in this manner, whether it was an accepted role - or in secret and with much danger. 

Truth cannot be hidden (for long), does not die, and will not be vanquished - it will return. 

Has anyone here ever read the Essene Gospels of Peace?  Interesting perspective - puts some things in a different light. It lacks the legalism and clericalism (?) of the church fathers, but it gives another slant on women's roles in Yeshua's time.  Just a thought ....

Guest


I have come on this forum and have read the posts.  The replies in favor of female ordination do not progress at all.  They are nothing more than an onslaught of sloganeering.  The people here do not formulate arguments.  I can hear them yelling their answers.  What a waste of time.  The replies from those defending Church teaching are the most rational and are genuine arguments.

 


They aren't really rational nor are they genuine arguments.  They are merely restatements of Vatican teachings.  None of the questions or observations have been answered.


For instance, it was pointed out that Christ said the so called words of ordination to everyone at the Last Supper and not just to 12 male apostles.  The person defending the Vatican ignores this presumably because he is not thinking for himself but merely parotting what the Vatican says.  Since the Vatican itself overlooks this loophole, the defender of the Vatican has nothing to say.


Not convincing at all.  Which is the problem with the Vatican today.  It seems to think that sheer weight of force it can make truth out of falsehood.


That's simply not the case.

As a Catholic woman, it fills me with a sense of shame that the Vatican and someone such as Deacon Mcmanaman, supposedly our pastors and supposedly intelligent man, can continue to be so intent on teaching that women are not images of Christ.

They leap against logic and reason. And where they acknowledge doubt, it is quickly resolved in favour of excluding women. 

Why do they do this?  In the end, all I can discern is their vain effort to prop up their own clerical status and with dismay, their attempt to sugar coat 2,000 years of wrong -- the hijacking of Christ so as to create an exclusive men's club of which they themselves jealously guard the gate.

Wolves in shepherd's clothing.

Sophie


Dear friends,

Following the conversation here, I found an interesting connection between it and an article about Cardinal Newman just posted in the thread dedicated to discussion about Pope Benedict's visit to Britain.  In a September 13, 2010 article in The Atlantic Monthly, author Eamon Duffy observes:

Newman['s] ... vision of a healthy church was in many respects the antithesis of Pope Benedict’s. Though punctiliously loyal to the papacy, Newman was a vocal opponent of the definition of papal infallibility in 1870, which he thought unnecessary and a burden to consciences. He denounced the “aggressive and insolent faction” of Ultramontanes who centralised Catholicism too much on Rome.   

He deplored clericalism, worked to create an educated and active laity, and argued for greater freedom for theology within the church.  

“Truth,” he wrote, “is wrought out by many minds, working together freely.” He detested, and himself suffered from, trigger-happy dogmatists who tried to pre-empt intellectual exploration by invoking pat formulae and ecclesiastical denunciations.

Structures of authority gave the church strength, he conceded, but did not give it life: “We are not born of bones and muscle.” Truth was objective, but had to be sought out by the heart and conscience as well as by the head, and he took as his motto as a cardinal the phrase of St Francis de Sales, “Heart speaks to heart.”    

The complete article, if you are interested is here: Pope Benedict's 2010 Visit to Britain.  Please enjoy!   

with love and blessings,  

~Sophie~  

Here's a great reply:
 
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Spirituality/rev-robert-barron-delivers-weekly-inspiration-john-cornwells/story?id=11662892&page=1

It is embarrassing to read what the great bishops and theologians of age after age in the church have had to say about women.

A priest offers sacrifice.  that's the essence of priesthood.  a priestess offers sacrifice.  So, as far as function goes, a woman can be a priestess.
 
But the sacramental/ministerial priesthood cannot be reduced to a function, for a simple reason.  God the Son became flesh and was himself the sacrifice, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.  This is not simply what he does, it is what he is--the eternal Person of the Son who offers Himself eternally to the Father.  He intercedes for us, for our salvation, for His Bride.  The broom/bride relationship is not a metaphor, it is real, as the Song of Songs reveals.  Christ and His Bride is the fulfillment of the Song of Songs, that New covenant relationship is everything that the Song of Songs foreshadowed and intended.  A woman's great gift is that she is a symbol of the Church, an icon of the bride of Christ.  That is a gift.  Some of you don't see it as a gift.  The Lord gives each one of us gifts that he does not give others, and that is part of the joy of heaven--that I can rejoice that this person has gifts that I don't have, has a role to play that I can't play.  We should rejoice in that, we should love that, we should delight in being a woman, in being icons of Christ's bride, icons of the new Israel.  What a noble vocation.

Guest


A priest offers sacrifice.  that's the essence of priesthood.  a priestess offers sacrifice.  So, as far as function goes, a woman can be a priestess.
 
But the sacramental/ministerial priesthood cannot be reduced to a function, for a simple reason.  God the Son became flesh and was himself the sacrifice, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.  This is not simply what he does, it is what he is--the eternal Person of the Son who offers Himself eternally to the Father.  He intercedes for us, for our salvation, for His Bride.  The broom/bride relationship is not a metaphor, it is real, as the Song of Songs reveals.  Christ and His Bride is the fulfillment of the Song of Songs, that New covenant relationship is everything that the Song of Songs foreshadowed and intended.  A woman's great gift is that she is a symbol of the Church, an icon of the bride of Christ.  That is a gift.  Some of you don't see it as a gift.  The Lord gives each one of us gifts that he does not give others, and that is part of the joy of heaven--that I can rejoice that this person has gifts that I don't have, has a role to play that I can't play.  We should rejoice in that, we should love that, we should delight in being a woman, in being icons of Christ's bride, icons of the new Israel.  What a noble vocation.

The marriage metaphor refers to God’s love and devotion. It is no more ascribing exclusive masculine gender to God than eating the body of Christ makes us cannibals.
Marriage is a partnership between equals. Man (who also is part of the Church/bride metaphor) is not equal to God and not superior to woman.
Literal interpretations seek to place women in a subordinate role, for such interpretations negate the feminine in God and place men above women in Church leadership.
It is a crime and sin against women.
 
 

Guest


........

Here's a great reply: 
 

This was not a great reply. It was only a defense of conservatism.
 
 
Conscience is the whisper of God touching your heart.
It is not a dictate of discrimination imposed by Church leaders.

Deacon McManaman and the Vatican's version of Jesus has no relevance for me.
If Jesus came for all, why would he endorse rule by men only?
What Deacon McManaman and his so called friends at the Vatican are peddling is a Jesus who gives them a rubber stamp for their medieval man show that props them up by discriminating against women.

Not very appealing or meaningful to any intelligent person who is looking for a faith community that has relevance to a world that is beginning to understand the truth about women and just how evil is the sin of sexism. 


One day some of them will see.

Guest


Deacon McManaman and the Vatican's version of Jesus has no relevance for me.
If Jesus came for all, why would he endorse rule by men only?
What Deacon McManaman and his so called friends at the Vatican are peddling is a Jesus who gives them a rubber stamp for their medieval man show that props them up by discriminating against women.

Not very appealing or meaningful to any intelligent person who is looking for a faith community that has relevance to a world that is beginning to understand the truth about women and just how evil is the sin of sexism. 


One day some of them will see.

I hate men!

I don't hate men.

I believe that women and men are beautiful, passionate, individual reflections of the divine, and that all of us are called to live fully God's vision for us, and for love in this world. In all that we think and say and do, we are called to be reflections of the holy one, and to share the love that brings us into community with one another. 


As far as the 'man club' that has hijacked Christ's Church -- for as long as that man club insists that women have no part in leadership and sacramental ministry, for as long as it insists that women are not reflections of the Divine Christ -- how can I as a person who respects both men and women have anything of their kind?

  


Matthew 25

Christ stands with those who are rejected by the man's club.

Guest


Deacon McManaman and the Vatican's version of Jesus has no relevance for me.
If Jesus came for all, why would he endorse rule by men only?
What Deacon McManaman and his so called friends at the Vatican are peddling is a Jesus who gives them a rubber stamp for their medieval man show that props them up by discriminating against women.

Not very appealing or meaningful to any intelligent person who is looking for a faith community that has relevance to a world that is beginning to understand the truth about women and just how evil is the sin of sexism. 


One day some of them will see.

 
Are they his friends?  The news in December was that the Vatican has 'dumbed down' the diaconate so that they can make room for women deacons without having to acknowledge that women are icons of Christ.
 
They changed the rules so that Deacons will no longer bear an iconic resemblance to Christ. 

In the Gospels, we hear Jesus treat women with respect and equality. Paul continues this attitude toward women, especially in the phrase “there is no longer male or female…”. It is time for the Church to reclaim this Gospel message. 

I despise men!  Every time I hear that word, I have to take a shower to get the "man essence" off of me.

that is not a way of thinking that was modelled by  Christ.  we are all God's creation... men and women included.  

Guest


Deacon McManaman and the Vatican's version of Jesus has no relevance for me.
 

 
Your version of Jesus would have no relevance for a number of other people.
 
The only version of Jesus that really matters is his version, Jesus' version.  If he did not endow his Church with a charism that will preserve the Church from doctrinal error, then all we have are versions of Jesus, some relevant for others and irrelevant for different others, and other versions relevant and irrelevant.  There would be no unified vision, not one teaching, but all diverse and multiplied.  And what would quickly become irrelevant is the question of the true and real Jesus, as opposed to someone's subjective version.

If Jesus came for all, why would he endorse rule by men only?
 

 
He is the king.  He alone rules.  We're dealing with a monarchy.  He is a man, he alone is in charge, hence rule by "man only". 
 

What Deacon McManaman and his so called friends at the Vatican are peddling is a Jesus who gives them a rubber stamp for their medieval man show that props them up by discriminating against women.

 
I wonder if he even knows anybody at the Vatican.  My suspicion is that he's a deacon like any other deacon, just doing his work, faithful to the teachings of the Church.  Do you think he really has a group of friends at the Vatican that are plotting to keep women out of Orders?  Silly nonsense.
 

Not very appealing or meaningful to any intelligent person who is looking for a faith community that has relevance to a world that is beginning to understand the truth about women and just how evil is the sin of sexism. 

 
Beginning to understand the truth about women?  That is so interesting.  You are looking for a faith community that accords with you, with your understanding and your taste.  You are not looking for a faith community that will disclose the truth of Christ, but one that is agreeable to you.  The standard is the world and its understanding.  The Church you are looking for is one that keeps up with that understanding, that follows the world and its progressive understanding.  Female ordination is not the only issue, I'm sure.  The Catholic Church is also behind when it comes to same sex marriage and contraception and IVF and Stem Cell research, etc.  The Church has to keep up with the world's progressive understanding, right?  Best to just leave the Catholic Church, find your faith community, do what you have to do, and when you are ready to grow up and commit to the interests of Christ, rather than your own, then return to the Church a new person.  In the meantime, have fun whining and looking down your nose at the Church.

One day some of them will see.

 
No, I think some day you'll see. 

Guest

Guest


Deacon McManaman and the Vatican's version of Jesus has no relevance for me.
 

 
Your version of Jesus would have no relevance for a number of other people.
 
The only version of Jesus that really matters is his version, Jesus' version.  If he did not endow his Church with a charism that will preserve the Church from doctrinal error, then all we have are versions of Jesus, some relevant for others and irrelevant for different others, and other versions relevant and irrelevant.  There would be no unified vision, not one teaching, but all diverse and multiplied.  And what would quickly become irrelevant is the question of the true and real Jesus, as opposed to someone's subjective version.

If Jesus came for all, why would he endorse rule by men only?
 

 
He is the king.  He alone rules.  We're dealing with a monarchy.  He is a man, he alone is in charge, hence rule by "man only". 
 

What Deacon McManaman and his so called friends at the Vatican are peddling is a Jesus who gives them a rubber stamp for their medieval man show that props them up by discriminating against women.

 
I wonder if he even knows anybody at the Vatican.  My suspicion is that he's a deacon like any other deacon, just doing his work, faithful to the teachings of the Church.  Do you think he really has a group of friends at the Vatican that are plotting to keep women out of Orders?  Silly nonsense.
 

Not very appealing or meaningful to any intelligent person who is looking for a faith community that has relevance to a world that is beginning to understand the truth about women and just how evil is the sin of sexism. 

 
Beginning to understand the truth about women?  That is so interesting.  You are looking for a faith community that accords with you, with your understanding and your taste.  You are not looking for a faith community that will disclose the truth of Christ, but one that is agreeable to you.  The standard is the world and its understanding.  The Church you are looking for is one that keeps up with that understanding, that follows the world and its progressive understanding.  Female ordination is not the only issue, I'm sure.  The Catholic Church is also behind when it comes to same sex marriage and contraception and IVF and Stem Cell research, etc.  The Church has to keep up with the world's progressive understanding, right?  Best to just leave the Catholic Church, find your faith community, do what you have to do, and when you are ready to grow up and commit to the interests of Christ, rather than your own, then return to the Church a new person.  In the meantime, have fun whining and looking down your nose at the Church.

One day some of them will see.

 
No, I think some day you'll see. 

 
God is neither male nor female but encompasses both.
 
God became human as a man in Jesus Christ. God is not a male, a man, or a masculine spirit. God is spirit. In the spirit we are neither male nor female, but one in Christ.

To make God a male spirit or male deity is nothing more than heresy and a grave sin against women.
 

Dear friends,

I wonder if it is not also a sin against God in the sense that by saying God is male, one is making masculinity an idol that distracts/derails one from the quest for the God who is?

with love and blessings,

~Sophie~

Sophie


Dear friends,

I wonder if it is not also a sin against God in the sense that by saying God is male, one is making masculinity an idol that distracts/derails one from the quest for the God who is?

with love and blessings,

~Sophie~

My friends, you are simply denying the Incarnation.  God considered in His divinity alone, is not male.  But He is Father.  Male and female are types that exist in certain kinds of material substances that are living.  So God is not male, considered in His divinity alone.  But God is Father.  Fatherhood is not the same as "male".  One can be a father without being a male, but if one is a male, it means one can be a father.  If one is female, one can be a mother.
 
As for making an idol out of masculinity, here is where you are denying the Incarnation.  When we worship Christ, we worship a male, a man, a masculine being.  Why?  Because Jesus is two natures, one Person.  He is the Person of the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, and he joined a human nature.  But an existing human nature comes in either male or female, not some abstract genderless neuter.  Jesus was a male.  When we genuflect, we genuflect to a male God, a crucified God, a God who became "man".  Sophie just does not know her theology.  You people have a big problem.  Take your showers and get the man essence off of you, if you have to, but you all need healing.  You are so wounded.  A healthy young lady who was loved by her father, who was hugged and affirmed by her father and feels good about herself precisely because she was loved by her father is simply delighted that God has been revealed as Father (Abba, dadda).  To her, that's a great thing.  That is what her own father did, he created the conditions for her to receive the revelation of God's fatherhood.  That fatherhood does not deny her the sense of her own worthiness; rather, she is awakened to who she really is through that very fatherhood, as she was through her relationship with her own father.  She sees God's fatherhood as her liberation, her freedom, the very principle of her integrity and sense of humanness.  You people cannot.  You need a God who is abstract, without matter, an It, not a "He", because you carry so many wounds that have yet to be healed.  Instead of seeking out that healing, you will go to great lengths to change the world, change the Church, change the liturgy, change the language, so that you never have to feel that pain, caused by those wounds, ever again.  That's what is so sad.  Your arrogance and intellectual sterility is nauseating.  Thank God there are so many women who just do not relate to you, who do not identify with you, who strive to draw close to God their Father, who love to sit on His lap and whisper in His ears, who love to wrap their arms around the Father's neck and kiss Him, and who love being women, who love being feminine, who see God the Father in every priest, even obnoxious priests, and who are so willing to serve God the Father and God the Son in serving their priests.  They don't see it as below them, because they are not proud.  Rather, they are greatful and full of the love of God the Father and God the Son.  They live within the Spirit of that mutual love between them. 
 
You people need to get out of the framework of justice, equality, my rights, anger, and into the framework of charity, generous service, gratitude, joy, etc.