tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post3406711280905820377..comments2023-12-17T16:13:06.670-05:00Comments on In a Godward direction: WO is me...Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-90779916528583435072010-09-12T08:53:09.499-05:002010-09-12T08:53:09.499-05:00Craig, you are confusing two things. First, I am u...Craig, you are confusing two things. First, I am using the term "accident" in the philosophical sense: that is, maleness is not of the essence of a human being, but a characteristic of the individual human; much as height, hair color, and so on. All particularities are "accident" as opposed to "essence." There is no doubt that Christ was male. The point is that maleness is not essential to human nature (not all humans are male; that is, it is a characteristic of _some_ humans. Christ assumed the whole human nature, from Mary -- as the Chalcedonian Definition puts it.<br /><br />Second, I find it odd that you object to the "miraculous" if you are willing to accept the Virgin Birth.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-38668494310974055992010-09-11T18:06:33.600-05:002010-09-11T18:06:33.600-05:00Ugh. "Mary could not give what she did not po...Ugh. "Mary could not give what she did not possess."<br /><br />All humans possess the fullness of human nature. But this does not mean that women do not have the psychological and physical aspects of males to some extent. Even in genetics, everything other than sexual organs and the very beginning of the expressions of sexuality is expressed in both male and female, from genes for the expression of testoterone, to genes for the expression of psychological propensities.<br /><br />But this brings to light that one thing that Mary simply did not have was the ability to determine a male. This cascade (the turning on of both her and a male set of genes to express male aspects in their varying forms) can only be started by a male.<br /><br />So while we don't know by what mechanism God did this, the determination of his sexuality was NOT from Mary. His humanity can very well come from her. But his masculinity, as with you and me comes from the grace of God. It is no accident that He is male. And it is no accident that Mary is female. That determination is (to us) what appears to be a random choice between a fathers x and y chromosome that are always both available.<br /><br />So unless you would have us believe that the choice of a massive miraculous biological intervention that could only be initiated through direct fertilization of one form or another had Jesus incarnate as a MAN was an accident, I'm pretty convinced that it was intentional.<br /><br />Not to mention, Christ's sexuality is revealed even before He was incarnate (Luke 1:35)<br /><br />I haven't seen much evidence for the assertion that the substance of this event is an accident.LPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05581676031969173840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-44875107694437064092010-09-11T08:43:14.561-05:002010-09-11T08:43:14.561-05:00Craig, you offer a good example of merely repeatin...Craig, you offer a good example of merely repeating the assertions instead of engaging the argument. You simply declare as if it were obvious that the maleness of Christ is essential. That leads to the heresy that denies his full humanity.<br /><br />I'm not the one who put forth the "natural resemblance" argument: that was Cardinal Ratzinger. It remains unconvincing, for the very reason you cite.<br /><br />Your elision to homosexual union is a brilliant example of the non sequitur.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-15751471595520567232010-09-11T03:38:43.362-05:002010-09-11T03:38:43.362-05:00Substance of a sacrament "represents what it ...Substance of a sacrament "represents what it signifies by natural resemblance" but this is not to say that the perception is important. The substance itself is important.<br /><br />But all that said, WE don't get to choose the substance. We didn't institute the sacrament, or any of them. Jesus did, and we don't invalidate or change that.<br /><br />Bread must still be the substance of bread for a valid sacrament, even if as a sacrifice, bread is accidental. Fish might even be claimed to be more valid as it is at least fish (I am the fish/flesh of life? Wierd.) <br /><br />But God chose bread. It must still be bread, not flour, not uncrushed wheat. It is the substance, not it's perception by you or me that makes it valid.<br /><br />Women, though human are not valid substance for the sacrament. Because the substance is not "humanity" as you are claiming, but man. To trivialize this specific role of a Man (Christ) in salvation is to do the same to Mary. Sex is not accidental but intentional to salvation, and the different but complimentary roles of male and female unified are important parts of the nature of sacraments. <br /><br />Jesus could not be incarnated through a male. Good heavens. With this, it should be obvious why homosexual union can not be right. They are not stone walling, they are telling people to stop teaching heresy and heterodoxy and eliminating confusion.LPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05581676031969173840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-34621147437746339712010-09-05T17:44:20.164-05:002010-09-05T17:44:20.164-05:00Tim, verily and Amen.Tim, verily and Amen.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-31373704303786253212010-09-05T14:54:57.644-05:002010-09-05T14:54:57.644-05:00`in such a case it would be difficult to see in th...<i>`in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ. For Christ was and remains a man.'</i><br /><br />Jesus was a man; the Christ is "the God bit", a "bit" that by definition transcends sex and gender. The `image of Christ' harks back to the `image of God' which *all* humans inherit - if we're going to be stupidly literalist about it, then from `male and female created he them'. <br /><br />And let's face it: the bible, which is supposed by some to carry some authority, categorically has Jesus interacting more than the socially accepted norms with women, and women going on to have roles in the early Church. Until the RCC wake up and repents of its bigotry, it remains the very kind of social oppressive force that Jesus himself opposed.Timhttp://www.shinyphoto.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-37916142241637544232010-08-19T08:50:20.438-05:002010-08-19T08:50:20.438-05:00Fr Michael, here is a link to the text of the &quo...Fr Michael, here is a link <a href="http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/chalcedon/chalcedonian_definition.shtml" rel="nofollow">to the text of the "Creed of Chalcedon."</a> I am referring to the important point that Christ is "consubstanial with humanity in terms of the human nature" and that this consubstantiality is established through his being "born of the Virgin Mary the Mother of God."<br /><br />You also seem to think this has something to do with the "authority of Jesus to confer the sacraments" -- which is not at all my point. I am addressing the claim (as I thought was clear in the text previous to the "Hooker" passage) in <i>Inter Insignores</i>, which explicitly links Christ's maleness with the maleness of ministers.<br /><br />I've noted elsewhere that Eastern Orthodox theologians have taken note of the importance of the Chalcedonian Definition on the question of the ordination of women. See <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200207/ai_n9147101/?tag=content;col1" rel="nofollow">the article by Yokarinis</a>, for instance, as part of an Old Catholic / Orthodox symposium in 2000. He makes specific reference to the importance of Chaldedon, in particular in light of Maximus the Confessor's articulation of the meaning of "human nature."<br /><br />As to the "benefit" of the sacrament -- I was referring to the sacrament of order itself, not the ministries it empowers one to exercise; that is, the charism of being ordained, not the ministry of one ordained.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-85695281739529897822010-08-18T18:00:49.628-05:002010-08-18T18:00:49.628-05:00As for your clever argument in the style of Hooker...As for your clever argument in the style of Hooker, the error is contained in the first sentence:<br /><br />"They say that women may not receive the benefit of the sacrament of order."<br /><br />What is the benefit of the Sacrament of Order? Is it upon him who receives it or for the faithful who receive the sacraments by virtue of the ordained's ministry? I would argue the latter. As far as I know priests of any Christian tradition are not limited to serving the faithful of one sex but rather members of both sexes.<br /><br />FrMichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-37811482601085602442010-08-18T17:56:10.006-05:002010-08-18T17:56:10.006-05:00I must have a different text of Chalcedon than you...I must have a different text of Chalcedon than you do. In reference to your paragraph starting, "And this is where the conflict with Chalcedon arises... for the Council affirmed that whatever it is in human nature that is of saving importance (since that is the object of the Incarnation) came through a woman — the Blessed Mother of God — and she could not confer what she did not possess."<br /><br />Whereas the English translations I have don't have anything relating to your gloss. Furthermore, I don't see where the authority of Jesus to confer the sacraments on His Church was based on His human nature. If that were the case, then one might argue that sinless Mary could have instituted the sacraments. Instead, I would argue that Jesus' authority to institute the sacraments was by virtue of His Divinity, which the Blessed Virgin did not confer upon Her Son.<br /><br />Put another way, the spiritual power of the seven sacraments is not based upon Jesus' humanity per se but by his identity as the Second Person of the Trinity. In theory, He could have appeared in the form of an apparition or vision and instituted the same seven sacraments with the same graces attached to them.<br /><br />FrMichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-43363954607275551562010-08-17T00:54:44.875-05:002010-08-17T00:54:44.875-05:00I was once bold enough to point that out to Bp Wan...<i>I was once bold enough to point that out to Bp Wantland and he had a fit!</i><br /><br />Having met the man, this is <i>not</i> difficult to imagine... O_xJCFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-5627221094750897312010-08-16T09:29:27.590-05:002010-08-16T09:29:27.590-05:00Thanks for the comments. I'm now home from a w...Thanks for the comments. I'm now home from a wee vacation! (Much needed...)<br /><br />Daniel, so true. That's the old Aristotelian / Thomist notion of the male as "norm" and the female as "defective." Sad to see so many living in a world of pre-modern anthropology when the Gospel points us in another more wholesome direction...<br /><br />R, yes, the implications are there, and open the way for further exploration of the nature of human relationship.<br /><br />Paul, when authority is all you have, that is what you will use! Problem is, the authority is essentially based on voluntary submission, and when people begin to rebel... well, we've seen a Reformation before!<br /><br />Billy -- something for Blogspot to think about!<br /><br />Bill, so true about Apollinarianism. I was once bold enough to point that out to Bp Wantland and he had a fit!Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-37038659012312391412010-08-14T22:15:38.817-05:002010-08-14T22:15:38.817-05:00Thanks for posting this again, Tobias. I'm no...Thanks for posting this again, Tobias. I'm not sure whether I was following your blog three years ago, but I don't recall seeing this then. It's very good. It's much like my own thought processes in the 1970s (though better stated!) as I was working through the question of WO. I remember reading <i>Inter Insigniores</i> in 1976 and thinking, "If this is the best argument they can come up with, then it's Game Over." And of course the argument is heretical. (A subset of Apollinarianism, I think, but I'd be happy to stand corrected on that.)<br /><br />One of the things that troubles me about all the knotted knickers in England over WO is the current perturbation among some folks over the validity of the sacraments administered by an ordained woman (particularly the Eucharist and Holy Orders). The validity of the sacraments is an important concept, but it seems to me that in this context these folks are way off base. Sacraments are not magic, and Jesus did not give us any rules of magic. <br /><br />I myself think that the Romans and those who follow in their train actually do not understand what sacraments really are. I'm not normally a big fan of the Articles, but Article XXVIII has it right: "Transubstantiation...overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament."WSJMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09712152737422347034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-36071380178286311002010-08-14T16:33:02.181-05:002010-08-14T16:33:02.181-05:00You need a "like" button. :-)You need a "like" button. :-)The Religious Pícarohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03620636294081499041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-54865422594163241462010-08-14T12:55:39.391-05:002010-08-14T12:55:39.391-05:00I have always thought of Christ's sex as an is...I have always thought of Christ's sex as an issue of historical particularity rather than ontological necessity. In other words, He was a man because that was a necessary part of communicating His message to a particular cultural context. I don't see that as communicating anything about the essential nature of the divine.<br /><br />What really bothers me about the Vatican's position here is that they are relying on authority (i.e. raw power) rather than logic to make their argument. As the average educational level of their audience rises over time, they are going to have more and more trouble with that approach. You can see it already in Europe and the US. It seems like an act of desperation: Believe this because we say so! Is this any way for a church to behave?Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02410143259690873128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-55796856215944386572010-08-14T11:48:51.964-05:002010-08-14T11:48:51.964-05:00Tobias,
I'm struck at how critical this argum...Tobias,<br /><br />I'm struck at how critical this argument is as well in the same-sex marriage debate at this time. That gender (sex) is accidental rather than essential throws into serious question the man-woman only argument for a sacramentally valid, unitive covenant.Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07474786207149076221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-66723214878885386412010-08-14T11:45:18.555-05:002010-08-14T11:45:18.555-05:00Brilliant.
An English colleague told me that he h...Brilliant.<br /><br />An English colleague told me that he had changed his mind about WO after reading a list of those who could not be ordained. After men with various disabilities, there was "A woman" at the end of the list. It seemed to him that the list suggested that women are defective men and that led to his rethinking of the issue.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.com