|
作者
|
內容
|
|
hing
|
Posted -
2001/11/5 下午 06:59:43
|
|
|
早前參加朋友於基督教內受浸的聚會, 負責的是一位女牧師, 開頭總覺得怪怪的(因自己未見過,不習慣). 但之後巳沒有覺得異樣了,而且感覺也很好呢!
女牧師, 不錯呀......
女"神父", 不知何時才會出現?
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/11/6 上午 09:49:13
|
|
|
不是潑冷水 - 這是不可能的.女執事也未可以哩!
|
|
hing
|
Posted -
2001/11/6 上午 10:55:25
|
|
|
說的也是.......
不過總相信這是時間問題,但這時間可能是數十年後了(如果到時天主教還未變成少數民族的話).
(真是罪過罪過)
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/11/6 下午 12:20:19
|
|
|
如果教廷在聖召問題上不那麼保守,承認整個理念有革新的必要,那麼,亦未必會很九 - 快沒有神父了,該燴。
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2001/11/20 上午 01:07:20
|
|
|
Why there is "快沒有神父了"?
Is the problem of priestly vocation really so serious?
Didn't our Holy Father's asserted
:"we have no authority to ordain women 'priests' "?
Is there really the need for women "priests"?
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/11/21 上午 09:57:20
|
|
|
Dear Augustine,
Yes, I can safely say that we are in great shortage of priestly vocation. This is a global phenomenon, more serious in big urban cities than villages. You may obtain some figures from available sources and check.
It is also true that the Church nowadays rules out women ordination. That is what I meant by 'a shift of perspective'.
|
|
hing
|
Posted -
2001/11/21 下午 09:16:06
|
|
|
這不是"有沒有需要"的問題, 而是"為什麼不可"的問題.
應該也是平等的問題.
不要說聖經上沒有記載, 教會最喜歡說要因應當時的社會,文化而作出改變.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2001/11/22 上午 12:56:47
|
|
|
The philosophy underlying the thrust for women priests is essentially a utilitarian one. Underlying this disastrous push is the belief that a person's worth is determined by a person's utility. So, the thinking goes, if women cannot become priests, their inherent worth is somehow affected since they have apparently been judged 'unworthy' of ordination. The Church condemns this philosophy, however, since it is totally antithetical to the her teaching that all people are intrinsically and inestimably valuable in the eyes of God, independent of their utility or their ability to produce. This misplaced view is also predicated on a secular and unchristian view of authority. Christianity views authority in a father-son relationship; the world views authority via a power-dominance struggle. Hence, when there is an avenue which women cannot pursue in the Church, it is viewed through the latter lens and not the former. In the Catholic way of understanding the priesthood, denying a woman ordination does not translate into either considering her less worthy or valuable or even 'less useful'.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2001/11/22 上午 12:58:57
|
|
|
The rebellion and defiance of those who seek to impose their new discipline on the Church is not tolerated by God. The sin of Korah spoken of in the New Testament (Cf. Jude 1:11), is recounted in the book of Numbers:
'Moses also said to Korah, 'Listen to me, you Levites! Is it too little for you that the God of Israel has singled you out from the community of Israel, to have you draw near him for the service of the Lord's Dwelling and to stand before the community to minister for them? He has allowed you and your kinsmen, the descendants of Levi, to approach him, and yet you now seek the priesthood too.' (Numbers 16:8-10).
'Then, when Korah had assembled all his band against them at the entrance of the meeting tent, the glory of the Lord appeared to the entire community, and the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 'Stand apart from this band, that I may consume them at once. So they withdrew from the space around the Dwelling [of Korah, Dathan and Abiram]. And fire from the Lord came forth which consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering the incense.' (Numbers 16:19-21,35).
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2001/11/22 上午 01:00:27
|
|
|
1 Cor.14:34:
"The women must be silent in the churches. For it not permitted
to them to speak, but to be subject, as the law says."
COMMENTS: There is much division of thought among exegetes on this passage:
1) Many say it clashes with 1 Cor 11 which says that a woman
praying or prophesying without a veil disgraces her head. That
could imply that with a veil it is permitted. Yet 14:34 flatly
forbids women speaking.--There is an answer, if one recognizes
that St. Paul, especially in regard to the Law, but also on some
other things, has two ways of looking, (a) focused view, in
which, it is as if one were looking through a tube and saw only
what is inside the circle made by the tube, and so he says that
the law makes heavy demands, gives no strength, so one must
fall. Of course, to be under heavy demands without strength does
mean a fall; (b) the factual view, in which the circle of the
tube is removed, so we see the whole horizon. Then: the law
still makes heavy demands and gives no strength. But off to the
side, in no relation to the law, is grace, offered even in
anticipation of Christ. With it the result is no fall, but
spiritual gain.--Similarly in our present texts, Paul could be
focusing in 11:5 on the fact that for her to prophesy without a
veil is wrong - he dos not mean to say that with a veil it is
permitted. Further, he seems to have in mind doing so as part of
the church service. He probably would not object to her
prophesying outside of official context. (cf. Doctrinal
Congregation, "Inter insigniores" of Oct. 25, 1976).
2) Those who say there is a clash resort to varied things, such
as saying that 14:34 is an interpolation - but that would have
to have happened in the autograph. No indication of that. Others
say Paul only objected to women joining in discussion after a
prophecy was given. A most radical view would say that 14:34-35
are really a quote by Paul of what his opponents in Corinth say.
So in the next lines he angrily rejects their view. (We must
admit, there was no punctuation in Paul's day. Hence we must
supply quote marks etc. according to sense).
The net result: We cannot use 14:34 to prove Paul prohibits women's
ordination. But we add, that at the last part of 14:34 Paul appeals to the
Law. That would probably be Genesis 3:16, which speaks of subjection of
women to husbands. So it seems not to be mere social custom he has in mind.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/11/22 上午 09:48:21
|
|
|
Allow me to ask: what in essence is a 'fundamentalist' approach to the scriptures? I.e., what does this encompass?
Does it applies to defiance as much as to authoritarianism?
I wonder if such plays (if ever) any part in this argument about women's role in the Church. Some how I have a feeling it does - along the Chruch's long history of evolution.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2001/11/22 下午 09:54:35
|
|
|
The scriptures are the natural source we may turn to. But without them there will still be some contradiction when a women priest exercise her ministry: Imagine a female priest says (in a Mass)
the following:"This is my Body.....", how can she
say such words "in persona Christi"? viz. as Christ was Himself a male?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2001/11/22 下午 10:00:42
|
|
|
Some says Jesus did not choose women to the priesthood because of the cultural limitations of the existing 'patriarchally dominated age of oppression' He lived in. This is the reason, they claim, that Jesus did not choose women - it would upset people too much!
This lame attempt at conditioning Jesus' actions is blasphemous and obscene. Imagine accusing Jesus Christ of the sin of sexism!
Our Lord was NOT concerned with cultural (AND IN PARTICULAR, mordenist) sensibilities when He defended the Apostles against the scribes who thought eating with unwashed hands was a sin (Cf. Matthew 15:2), nor for that matter, was He too concerned with doing a little extracurricular activity on the Sabbath (Cf. Matthew 12:3-8). On the other side of the spectrum, Jesus did NOT have much 'compassion' with the practice of divorce (Cf. Matthew 5:32), NOR did He approve of the Jewish idea that only they - and not the Gentiles - would be saved.
=> The 'cultural card' that is often played by the dissenters will not do. It is logically false, and it is flawed theologically. It is obtuse thinking.
What is the point for the Church to delibrately fit comtemporary secular ideas? We just should not be "too concerned" with what outsiders feel
about us.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/11/23 上午 10:43:19
|
|
|
When we talk about "in persona Christi", are we talking about Christ as "God and Human"? I don't see any "stong and sound" theological or logical fault why a female priest can't not act "in persona Christi", AS Vatican II SC 7 said,"To accomplish so great a work, Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, NOT ONLY in the person of His minister, "the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross" , but especially under the eucharistic species. By His power He is present in the sacraments, so that when A MAN BAPTIZES IT IS REALLY CHRIST HIMSELF WHO BAPTIZES (is that minister work "in persona Christi'?). He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church. He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings,for He promised: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20)
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/11/23 下午 01:01:58
|
|
|
Augustine — a male chauvinist?
There is a question Augustine could never have asked about himself; nor could it have been asked by anyone in the society in which he lived. It is a question raised by the contemporary feminist revolution in what women are thinking about themselves, and in the attitudes of society towards women. In this respect Augustine was simply a man of his time, that is to say, a Christian man of the late Roman Empire; he was born in 354 AD and died in 430. This was a time when the social subordination of women to men was taken for granted by everybody, by women as well as men. So he took it for granted too, like everyone else. There is not much point to disprove it.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/11/23 下午 02:48:56
|
|
|
Wooo, Steve, which Augustine were you referring to? The canonized St. Augustine? What did 'he' say here?
One point about 'female chauvinists' - if women is in fact in every respect SAME as men, they should not: (1) be made to bear children for 9 months at one time; (2) should not be made to 'milk' children for several years after giving birth to them, (3) they should not be less mascualine than me, etc.ect. Or, vice versa, men should be made to bear children, etc.
The Pope did mentioned quite recently that the fundamental roles of men and women should NOT be confused even though the modern age calls for equality between the sexists. Similarly, the 'icons' of the Blessed Mary and of Christ respectively should not be confused. So priests should still be men, and not women.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/11/23 下午 05:05:18
|
|
|
I think the question is "gender" an essence for the priesthood?
When traditionally we use "she" and "her" to refer the church, how a "male" head -Christ fit into the "female" body- Church?
Theology is just an anology, so that we can't just said Christ is a male, therefore a priest had to be male. It is not a good and sound theology.
be rational and resaonable when doing theological investigation
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/11/23 下午 05:06:48
|
|
|
Cecilia is right, man and woman are equal but not same.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/11/23 下午 05:11:00
|
|
|
And it would make life terribly boring if they are the same.
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/11/23 下午 08:35:53
|
|
|
I just found St Auguestine has a background for his understanding about female back in his time. May be its just coincident that this Augustine also share this same view.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2001/11/23 下午 09:15:54
|
|
|
My appreciation of St. Augustine 's attitudes is natural: just that he got his points. Besides, how could I be having any "background" similar to his...whatever they are...in this 21th century?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2001/11/23 下午 09:33:46
|
|
|
A Chauvinst? Yes in its "patriotic" sense but why should I like "war"? As everyone sense I did not (yet) have any formal theological training and those queries that I ask are because of my curiosity (of course the materials are from others yet I think they still got their point). And I don't need to be a 'professional' theologian to be named (yes Mum chose it)Augustine......
I have no intention (& not qualification) to be a dissident. What the Church proclaims I believe. I am just curious that why we get involved in the trouble of ordaining women priests? back to my first question,
Is That Necessary? Aren't we supposed to be content with
what the Pope has expressed?
Is "vocation shortage" really a reason as commonly thought? But ordaining women priests are not the true solution...what happens if another "vocation crisis" happens?
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/11/24 上午 02:28:35
|
|
|
Who wants war? Patriotic if you prefer, or right wing if you allow me to put it. But I can assure you I am on neutral ground. I never like to be a left winger.
Why should one have to wake up from a cozy comfortable and safe tradition? Let's all stick to what has always been there. But come to think of it, is our faith a static one or do we have to live through it?
|
|
steve
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/11/24 上午 02:34:06
|
|
|
We need to address the issue because of the intellectual shift in the way we see things. In modern days, the Catholic tradition of excluding women from the priesthood has come to seem unjust!!!
Needless to say, natural differences between males and females offered sufficient reason for accepting a differentiation of functions and roles. For centuries, the prevalence of this thinking allowed the traditional practice of excluding women from the priesthood to seem right.
By contrast, according to modern understanding of natural rights which tells us equal rights inhere in all persons qua persons, this exclusion has come to seem arbitrary, and in the end unjust.
Obviously, whatever we choose will have profound implications for religion in society. If the Catholic tradition of selecting only males should be continued, the Catholic Church will seem to be at fundamental odds with the culture. Conversely, if women are admitted to the priesthood, the Catholic Church will have adapted itself to the practices of contemporary culture.
At certain times in history, fidelity to the true faith has required of the Church that it contradict to contemporary culture (where you can ignore situations in life and regard the Holy Scripture as the only source of truth).
At other times, adaptation to the existing culture has been both a sign and an instrument of a deeper penetration into the truth of the Holy Scripture (where you take into consideration situations in life and apply it to the Holy scripture).
Of course, adhering to the Holy Scripture is safe and cozy whereas you have to sail through storms and turbulences if you need to stick your head out.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/11/24 上午 09:52:45
|
|
|
The issue about women priesthood is a very controversial one.
All I can say is that it deserves serious thoughts. As faithfuls, my personal view is that we should not be too bothered about the 'results' or 'outcomes'; rather, the Holy Spirit will always guide the Church through crises and chores, as it did for 2000 years. Before the Lord's resurrection, every one who witnessed His death thought that His teachings died with this 'Just Man'; but He did resurrect, together with the teachings He taught. Nothing is impossible.
So I don't really see much trouble with this women priesthood. What we need to tackle, though, is the phenonmen that there are much more single women in the Church than men; and priesthood vocation is scarce. But even the single women did not take the vow to nunhood, so what is point of arguing about women becoming priests or not?
Sometimes, we even have to ask - where has the men gone?
|
