Pope Benedict’s ordination to the priesthood
60 years ago yesterday
The Cardinal’s implication that we cannot ordain women priests merely because it is “Tradition” that we do not is still quite irresponsible and deceptive, since it does not address or make clear the nature of Tradition, which, in this case, is the Traditional form of the Sacrament of Ordination, and thus is Sacramental validity.Sounds Protestant of the patriarch. Actually scripture is part of tradition.
For, just as we cannot baptize using sand (but must use water, as dictated by Traditional form), and just as we cannot confect the Eucharist using potato slices and Pepsi (but must use bread and wine, as dictated by Traditional form), and just as Christian marriage cannot be polygamous, or homosexual ... or inter-species! (but must involve only one man and one woman, as dictated by its Traditional form), so we are bound to only ordain men (potential fathers – patriarchs) to the Christian priesthood. To do otherwise would be a false, unApostolic physical sign of the Sacrament, and thus an invalid Sacrament. So, for the Cardinal to say there is “no theological obstacle” to ordaining women to the priesthood is simply untrue and ridiculous. There is a BIG theological obstacle to it – namely, the very foundation of Catholic Sacramental theology, which recognizes that correct physical form dictates Sacramental validity. ;-)Ties into the natural-law truths of Roissy (not a churchman at all but, a realistic observer of human nature, otherwise conservative: ‘typically quite foul ... but insightful all the same’): women like strong men and would have it no other way, modern(ist) public piety notwithstanding.
The bigger problem here, of course, is the liberal-modernist notion (adopted by all-too-many otherwise right-minded modern Christians) that there is no fundamental difference between men and women. This is a lie from the very pit of hell. For, while men and women are certainly created with equal human dignity, etc., they are not (as Traditionally understood) the same creation; and they most certainly do not perform the same function or have identical roles in human society. A British comedian by the name of Jim Jeffries (whose comedy is typically quite foul ... but insightful all the same) illustrated the principal quite well, when he said ...Now, when a man sleeps with a lot of women, we say that he’s “a stud,” and society admires that. But, when a woman sleeps with a lot of men, we say that she’s “a slut”; and people think that’s unfair – a double-standard. But, it’s not unfair at all, and I’ll tell you why: Being a stud is bloody hard. To be a stud, you have to be charming, and witty, and handsome; have a lot of money, drive a really nice car and have a really amazing job. But, to be a slut, you just have to “be there.” And, don't get me wrong ... I love sluts. But, let’s be honest: I’ve know a lot of fat, ugly sluts. But I’ve never met a fat, ugly stud. :-)Any secular person would admit that this is 100% true. So, if the intrinsic difference between men and women (and the roles they can and do play in our society) is obvious to seculars, it should be obvious to Christians as well. Women are not men who merely lack penises. Sexuality is part of our human makeup and human identity, and it has a Sacramental dimension in the Church of Christ. A woman cannot be a father or serve as the physical Sacramental sign of a patriarchal priesthood.
The bottom line here is that we need to stop apologizing for patriarchy or buying into the liberal belief that patriarchy is somehow “oppressive” or “unfair.”
Essentially, the Catholic “both-and” (as opposed to the Protestant “either-or”) mentality must apply here. For, on one hand, man and woman are the same creation (as per Genesis 1:26-27 ... both created in the image and likeness of God); but, on the other hand, they are different creations – that is, created for intrinscally different purposes (Genesis 2:6-7 and Genesis 2:18-24). As it says in Genesis 2:15, man was created to “tend and guard” the Garden (i.e., creation), so as to safeguard it from evil; and to this man (as head of the human family), the proto-commandment was given (Gen 2:16-17). However, as it says in Gen 2:18, the woman was created to be a “help mate” for the man – to assist the man in his God-given ministry, for “It is not good for the man to be alone.” And while the woman’s role is essentially that of a subordinate, it is also, paradoxically, greater than that of the man, since the man must essentially be at her service (just as he is with the rest of creation), since she is the final and greatest creation (God’s masterpiece), and he is to “tend and guard” her as well – protecting her from evil. Now, in the tragedy of the Eden narrative, Adam of course fails to do this. But, while Eve is the first human being to sin, it is Adam’s sin which alienates all of mankind from God, because he possessed the greater responsibility; and if Eve had sinned and Adam remained faithful, he could have (as a sinless human being) interceded for her, and have, himself, been the Messiah. But this was not to be.
Indeed, the most telling aspect of the Eden narrative (viz. the role of men and women) is the contrasting statements in Gen 2:17 vs. Gen 3:3. For, as I said, in Gen 2:17, which takes place before Eve is even created, God gives the command to Adam that he must not “eat” of the Tree of Knowledge, “lest you die.” Yet, in Gen 3:3, when Eve recounts the same commandment to the serpent, she says, “You must not eat of it, or even touch it, lest you die.” The distinction between these two expressions would be readily obvious to an ancient Jew, who would immediately recognize it as a legalistic “hedge” – a legally imposed barrier, just as, in the Torah, Leviticus is a “hedge” (courtesy of Moses) to prevent one from violating the Ten Commandments (the heart of the Law); and just as Deuteronomy is another “hedge” (courtesy of Moses) around Leviticus, to stop one from violating Leviticus, so that, in turn, one would not violate the Ten Commandments. What the author of Genesis expects us to conclude is that the additional stipulation not to “touch” the fruit of the Tree was imposed upon Eve by Adam, her authoritative head And he does this in order to faithfully carry out his God-given ministry of human headship. His only fault is that he does not follow through on his responsibility, but follows his wife into sin.
So, in short, men and women are equal in created dignity, but intrinsically different in created purpose. And one need not be a believer to discern this. Until the rise of modern Feminism (and the tyranny of political correctness that accompanied it) it was and is simply common sense.
According to classical Marxist theory, I, as the son of an automobile-production engineer thrown out of work by Thatcher’s economic restructuring, should have been the most radical of students. Yet there I was in the varsity library reading all the dust-covered tomes that the leftist academics who taught our courses had left off the reading lists for the last 30 years. There I was, propping up the student union bar telling the usual gaggle of plummy-voiced Marxists that the state wasn’t going to wither away with money becoming redundant while we all went around happily doing odd jobs for each other. Perhaps preserving a modicum of economic reality against the bourgeois Bolshies’ meditative myopia was my little way of fighting the class war.From Taki.
What would work, however, would be to change university education from the three-year radicalization holiday it has become to something more like vocational night school. Those who wish to better their prospects or who simply have an unquenchable thirst for esoteric knowledge could do courses in the evenings or on weekends after they have finished their real job. The best cure for student radicalism is a normal working life.
I’ve noticed that Byzantine Catholics venerate post-schism Eastern Orthodox saints, and Western Rite Orthodox venerate post-schism Roman Catholic saints; can anyone explain why? I mean especially to understand the Western Rite view, whether WRV are allowed to pray to post-schism saints such as are contained in the Anglican Breviary...90% of Byzantine Catholics don’t venerate post-schism Eastern Orthodox saints; they venerate the same saints as Roman Riters (they don’t identify with the Orthodox at all). A small minority, mostly converts, do. Which is no problem because Rome gives born Orthodox the benefit of the doubt: not heretics but estranged Catholics. (Maybe Antiochian WRO takes the same open-minded approach to Roman Catholic saints.) So you’ll find the tiny Russian Catholic Church (American non-Russians who love everything Russian Orthodox but remain under Rome) liturgically commemorating Russian Orthodox saints, with Rome’s blessing.
I know, YF, you’re no fan of the Ordinary Form, but I am now that we have these new translations (I was before as long as it was done right and not in the English language since nothing was translated right). As far as the Tridentine rite goes I demand it be in Latin* – in fact I even think the epistle and gospel should only be in Latin* too (only to be reread in the vernacular during the homily; that’s how the Tridentine-rite parish I go to does it). What I am saying is the American Missal from researching it is too close to the Tridentine Mass so I am very uncomfortable and plainly opposed because it would be like the TLM in the vernacular. I, ignorant of Anglican tradition so take me with a grain of salt in my opinions regarding it, think a 2nd Edition Book of Divine Worship with more traditional BCP in it would do fine for Americans; like you said several times the British seem to prefer the Ordinary Form. Maybe give Anglican Ordinariates the option to have reconstructed Sarum (in Latin only) as their Extraordinary Form counterpart to the Book of Divine Worship instead of the Tridentine.Latin, particularly pronounced the Italian way as most Catholics who use it do (there are also the German/Polish pronunciation where soft c is s not ch, and in practice the French accent), is beautiful and it has its place as an unchanging template with clear meanings from which to make vernacular translations, and as a common language when congregations are international, but other than that and historical or sentimental reasons why insist on only Latin for the Tridentine Mass? One of my catch phrases here is It’s Not About Latin™. Fr and Ms Old Liberal still running local RC institutions (AmChurch) know Joe and Mary Average Catholic (such as every person from mid-century outside tradsville I’ve mentioned it to) don’t want to go back to Latin (of course not; they don’t understand it) so the old libs use that to scare them away from the TLM. So I’ve always said fine, translate it as an option. Trads think that’s too Protestant and libs know it undercuts them (the people would understand it so it would teach them Catholicism, which the libs don’t want) so until Pope Benedict it’s been next to impossible.
*Old Church Slavonic instead of Latin for Slavic parishes of course! Wasn’t just Croats; Poles and Slovaks were doing it on a limited indult basis during late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The New York Times’ Virginia Heffernan’s lovely essay last year about the superb sound quality we enjoyed a generation ago on our old-fashioned analog landline telephones. In contrast, having grown up on crummy-sounding cell phones, she says it’s no wonder that today’s youth prefer to text.Obviously I use a computer keyboard but I don’t type with my thumbs on a dinky one.
I’m not saying being irreligious is a good thing. But I’m about done with people running for high office trying to out-Christian each other. Time was when religion was understood to be an essentially private matter. Dwight Eisenhower (one of my favorite modern presidents) didn’t even bother getting baptized until after he was elected president.– Ad Orientem
Memo to the GOP. We are electing a president, not a patriarch or church elder.
Oh, Lordy, that’s a lot of money that could’ve gone into saving homes, rebuilding lives and educating children.Correct. The difference between the left’s and the libertarian ways of doing that is the left trust the same government that got us into Iraq etc. to do it while libertarians don’t, saying the market would do a better job. Free up money from bad investments like stupid wars abroad and put it to work in the economy. That said, Ron Paul for example is fine with working with the left short-term taking a peace dividend from drawing down the military to help people used to government aid, but weaning them off taxpayer money.
I think it is clear that if we continue to elect the stooges the two rotten political parties offer us we will forever be fighting useless and immoral wars for the sake of the Military Industrial Complex or the geo-political pipe dreams of the neocons and other modern-day Jacobins. As Ron Paul has said, this will all come to a halt when we bankrupt ourselves and the entire system collapses.From Mark Shea.
And yet there is no outrage from either the left or the right. Democrats are pushing for more and more government encroachment into private lives and Republicans are concerned solely with cutting the domestic budget. Both are cheering wildly and ecstatically for Netanyahu’s excesses and vowing even more financial support to secure Israel’s borders.
Noam Chomsky correctly observes, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” (Thanks to Phil Champagne.)From Joshua.
That’s what I mean when I say that being called an “extremist” means you disagree with Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.
Incidentally, I am not a supporter of Chomsky, who does write something of value once in a great while. But when I saw this, and how conventional and simplistic his views were, I concluded he was someone I couldn’t respect.
Forbes has a list out of America’s five richest counties. Unsurprisingly, four of the five are in the Washington, D.C., area. Washington’s prosperity is completely detached from the fortunes of the rest of the country, since Washington continues to suck in tax dollars even when other parts of America suffer or even decline economically. There is an unspoken bipartisan consensus to keep things this way, since those who make it to the Senate or the House now almost never return home, even if they are turned out of office by the voters. Instead, they stay in Washington and spend the rest of their lives as lobbyists.From Chronicles.
The only sure sign of a reduction in the size and scope of the federal government will be an exodus out of the D.C. suburbs. I doubt, though, that we will ever see such a thing.
Marketers love adolescents, adult and otherwise. They’re a perfect helot class in a democracy: People with no self-control are easily led to purchase their identities through consumer products on credit. Totalitarian nanny states love adolescents, because someone has to take care of such people after their parents get sick of them. Big Brother loves ruling over a population of adolescents. You think acting like a superannuated teenager makes you a rebel? It doesn’t; it makes you a conformist. Act like an adult for a day to find out what rebellion against the modern age is.From Taki.