Nancy Pelosi On Being Attracted to the Priesthood - "Real Power"
It's been reported that Nancy Pelosi has expressed hope that one day the Catholic Church would permit women priests, saying the ability to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ is "real power."
Speaking at an event at Georgetown University, she made the comments during a conversation with Rev. Jim Wallis, the director of the Georgetown University Center on Faith and Justice.
"Every day [priests] have the power … of turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, that is real power, now we’re talking power, and that’s why I was more attracted to that than being a nun. On the other hand, maybe women will be able to do that as well, that’s something to think about, something I was hoping the pope would do.”
The priesthood is not about "power", Nancy!
Last April, with some 1,800 priests renewing the promises made at their ordinations, Pope Francis had this to say on the priesthood:
"Being priests, dear brothers, is a grace, a very great grace, yet it is not primarily a grace for us, but for our people ... Seeking our own glory robs us of the presence of Jesus, humble and humiliated, the Lord who draws near to everyone, the Christ who suffers with all who suffer, who is worshiped by our people, who know who his true friends are. A worldly priest is nothing more than a clericalized pagan."
You could take it to the bank that a Democrat would see it in terms of power.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the talk around consecrating women in the Anglican Church was couched in the same language of power and rights. We seem to always forget that priesthood is an emulation of he who came to serve, not to be served; that it carries with it the prospect of harsher judgement; and that nobody has a 'right' to be ordained.
ReplyDeleteIt's also indicative of the state of catechesis that Pelosi seems to believe that the power lies with the priest, as if he had been given a god whistle to summon the Spirit to do his bidding.
¡Ugh!
ReplyDeleteThere’s no shortage of Catholics who openly call for women’s ordination. As I mentioned from time to time back at Cranmer’s, I once heard a priest say in a homily that he looked forward to the day when that happens. At least one bishop, too, campaigned actively within the hierarchy for the ordination of women and also of married men. That was Erwin Kräutler, who for many years headed the prelature of Xingu in the Brazilian Amazon region, and whose insistence eventually resulted in the convening of the Amazon Synod, now largely forgotten except for the Pachamama business.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Kr%C3%A4utler
The ordination of married men is only a matter of Church discipline, though. The ordination of women is a theological impossibility.
DeleteOddly, in April 1976 the Pontifical Biblical Commission concluded unanimously: “It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate.”
DeleteIn further deliberation, the commission voted 12-5 in favour of the view that Scripture alone does not exclude the ordination of women, and 12-5 in favour of the view that the church could ordain women to the priesthood without going against Christ’s original intentions.
This by Avery Dulles is the clearest overview of the reasons women cannot be priests. Unlike the Pontifical Biblical Commission he correctly understands scripture alone is insufficient:
“Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” is the culmination of a long series of documents issued under Paul VI and John Paul II since 1975. In these documents the case against women’s ordination is made under four principal headings: Bible, tradition, theological reasoning and magisterial authority. These components are not to be taken in isolation but in convergence, since none of them is an independent authority. According to Vatican II, “Sacred tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, contribute effectively to the salvation of souls” (“Dei Verbum,” 10).
On the other hand, more traditional (small t) Protestant objections to the ordination of women rest exclusively on a few (contested) verses in scripture and not, as in Catholic and Orthodox teaching, on the Tradition, (capital T), the sacerodotal and sacrificial nature of the priesthood, and Christ's selection of male Apostles to confect the sacraments).
Delete"There is no need to explain at length how Scripture prohibits women from ordained Church leadership, simply quoting a few passages will suffice ....
[Scriptural verses quoted ... ]
The passages quoted above (1 Cor 11:8‒10, 14:33‒35; 1 Tim 2:11‒14; 3:1‒2) are without question the ones that speak to women in church leadership the most clearly and directly. Therefore, to undermine their meaning being sufficiently known from a plain sense reading, or to use obscure passages to make those clear passages unclear, is to go against the hermeneutic given to us by the Anglican Formularies. Following this Anglican hermeneutic, we must conclude that Scripture forbids women to preach and teach the word in church or to have authority over a congregation. Since these duties are essential parts of a Priest’s vocation, we must as Anglicans who assent to Article XX deem it unlawful for churches to ordain women to the Priesthood."
Why was a pontifical commission playing around with 'scripture alone'? It's not at all clear that the favoured proof texts alone are universal normative prohibitions against women clergy; this is evident from the fact that most mainstream Protestant churches no longer read them that way. Scripture doesn't present a detailed theology of the priesthood, it merely gives a record of its history. It's the Tradition of the Church in which that theology has been worked out and its answer has always been that the priesthood is exclusively male (no matter how some might try to twist the order of deaconess, it's clear that this was never an ordained order).
DeleteAs St. Epiphanius of Salamis wrote in the 4th century: If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfil a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. . . . But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good.
Of course, the Theotokos, as the one who bore Christ and presented him to the world, is the exemplification of the priesthood of all believers.
The Orthodox Church would also add that
Deletebishops, priests and deacons are Ikons of Christ and therefore must be male because Jesus Christ is male. To understand this we must think about what an Ikon is. An Ikon is a religious symbol, but yet much more than a symbol. It is an instrument of Divine reality. It is a picture and a vision for the eyes which conveys a spiritual reality to the worshipper. We can say that an Ikon is an image of the Divine, but we must say at the same time that an Ikon has no divine power of its own. That would make an Ikon an idol and idols belong to pagan worship. An Ikon has the spiritual function to help us receive into our souls the spiritual awareness of what it depicts. For example; when we look at an Ikon depicting the crucifixion, the Ikon helps us to participate more spiritually in the wonder of Christ’s love for us and the efficacious power of His sacrifice on the cross. Looking at an Ikon in our worship is the most direct way we can visually represent Christ’s atoning death for the forgiveness of our sins. Looking at an Ikon strengthens the spiritual reality of our worship.
The same thing should happen when we look at our clergy. When we are at worship our priest or bishop becomes an Ikon of Christ. Christ is God but He is also a fully perfect human man. That means that a priest, as His Ikon or most true symbol, must also be a man. A priest must be male because Jesus is a man. In the Incarnation God became man not woman. The male priesthood is a supernatural concept. In that sense it is a mystery just as the Incarnation or Resurrection is a mystery. Reason and logic cannot fully explain it, or define it, or detract from the truth of it, any more than you and I can explain it as being the way of God.
We can say that God has no particular sex, male or female. But in the Revelation of God through Christ, God chose to become a man because He wanted to take to Himself a bride which is the Church, the Family of God. In like manner, God also chose men to represent Him as the head of the human Church family. God decided that the function of consecrating, blessing and absolving is the role of man to do in our human existence on earth. Men have not made this their role. God made it men’s role. As individuals we believe God’s Word about this or we choose not to. But as members of the family of Orthodox Christian Churches we have no choice. The Church belongs to God and God has made His choice. God will do what He wants to do and what He wants is always right and best for us. God has chosen and blessed us with a male priesthood. Let us rejoice and be glad and thankful for it.
We Protestants have a rather different approach, as you know, to this alleged 'power'. Luther shook uncontrollably when he was ordained and sent out to 'make God', which caused him to realise that he wasn't. All the same, we share an understanding of those who try to purchase priestly authority, as Peter put it: 'Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.'
ReplyDeleteQuite right. It doesn't matter what one's understanding of the priesthood/church leadership is - it's an authority given by God and not claimed by (wo)man. Perhaps some meditation on the end results of Korah's demand for the priestly office would be helpful.
DeleteRegrettably, few of our bishops have any supernatural faith. They're actually so embarrassed by the concept that they'll go after any among their number who exhibit it. That being so, I expect they'll try to foist priestesses on us shortly.
DeleteWell, Pope Francis certainly isn't in favour of women priests! He's unequivocally stated on a number of occasions that women cannot be ordained as priests.
DeleteRecent surveys indicate a majority of Catholics support allowing priests to get married and ordaining women.
Jack has a higher opinion of Francis than I have.
DeleteHJ has mixed views on Pope Francis and is just stating the facts about his position on this.
DeleteHJ likes this observation from a Orthodox Coptic priest,
ReplyDelete"It is important to note here that the principal role for each gender has nothing to do with authority! That is the understanding of Christian love: sacrifice and obedience! Not authority. Unfortunately, many men and women desire the priesthood for the sake of authority. Such people are missing the entire meaning of Christian love and misunderstand the meaning of the Priesthood. Priesthood is not about lust for power or authority. Priesthood is about serving others: it is about carrying the cross and being crucified with Christ for the sake of the Church. It is a very difficult path to salvation. Usually, the ones that are truly worthy of the Priesthood are the ones that flee from it ... Those who run after the priesthood are usually unsuitable for it regardless if they are males or females. Let us therefore approach this subject with a humble spirit. Remember know your faith, live your faith and teach your faith and glory be to God forever, Amen."
And this from Sheldon Vanauken:
ReplyDelete"Nothing so clearly illustrates the radical difference between the believing Christian and the non-Christian as the concept of what a priest should be: a man of faith or a man who can choose it for a career, like law. A priest or bishop without belief is as false as, quite precisely, hell to the one and a nearly innocent careerist to the other.
The element of need that may persuade the non-believer to go into the church might offer a clue to the not-altogether-dissimilar phenomenon of unbalanced people, even nuts, becoming psychologists. At all events, men’s need for faith as well as the view of the church as a career like any other presumably explain the unbelieving priests and bishops—shepherds of the flock!—who do the church so much harm yet feel no need to resign, and appear to be almost blind to their own dishonesty."
Fr. Thomas Hopko of blessed memory says something similar:
DeleteFor the priesthood is not a profession, a job, or a way of self-fulfillment in personal holiness. It is a sacrament of the Church, in and for the Church, of him who is the Church’s only pastor and priest, its head and it husband, the Lord Jesus Christ, Of course all will agree that the bearer of this sacrament should be holy and talented. But the holiness and the gifts are included within the sacrament, and the sacrament is not dependent on the sanctity and skills of its bearer. For this reason no person can claim the office of priesthood on the basis of professional qualifications or personal holiness.
The priest is called by God with the consent of the faithful in ways known to himself. Some may force their way into the office for one reason or other, but this is a violation of the sacrament undertaken unto condemnation and judgment. For the priest is called and chosen by God as the sacramental guarantee of the continuity and identity, the purity and integrity, of the body and bride of his Son until he comes again in glory to establish his kingdom in which there will be no sacraments, for then he will be all and in all.
@Jack -- choosing the priesthood as a career like law. Do you imagine the appalling quality of our bishops correlates to the rise of singletons within general society? You know..."I'm never foing to marry because I'm completely selfish so why not priesthood?"
DeleteSo what's the answer? Because I don't see anything more constructive from the trad lobby than incessant bitterness and moaning - the deeply unhealthy antithesis of the fruit of the Spirit - and the nailing of 95 Theses to various blog posts. It certainly seems to me that there's a distinct lack of 'supernatural faith' among vocal traditionalists in God's ability to call the right people to ordination (in the Church that the Holy Spirit supposedly uniquely protects), or even that God can ensure that the Church chooses the correct Pope.
DeleteShould the Catholic Church take a leaf from the Tory playbook and keep deposing leaders until it selects one that the trads like? They seem to be agitating for a version of congregationalism in vestments, so it seems fitting.
I rather think you're seeing what you want to see, after the manner of the Orthodox. The answer, as you put it, is coming through the seminaries as we speak. The only men presenting themselves for ordination are very conservative. "Bitter trads", in other words. Francis and his Jesuits can't keep them out, and Vatican II hipsters are not replacing themselves in the priesthood. The "smaller, purer" Church is inevitable as well as desirable. The only question is how much damage will the Church sustain before these men can start to turn things around.
DeleteYou should read this, this, and especially this.
DeleteYes, HJ knows he's a protestant convert but his observations hold truth. They also shed light on the emphasis recent popes have been giving to ending the West-East schism, and Pope Francis' attempts at making the Church more "synodal". If you're really so disenchanted with the Roman Catholic Church there are other options for remaining in communion with her.
I'm not in the least disenchanted with the Roman Catholic Church. That's kind of been the point of everything I've been saying.
DeleteReally! What "Roman Catholic Church"? It's just the bishops and the pope, then?
DeleteDid you bother to read those articles? You should. They are considered and may be a helpful antidote to the worse of CM.
Yes, it's just the bishops -- most, not all -- and the (cutrent) pope. And yes, I read all three articles (BTW, thanks for introducing me to this interesting writer), but nothing he says seems to disagree with my own views. He just interprets what he sees more optimistically than I do. For instance, he more or less admits there's a strong hostility towards Catholicism within Orthodoxy, but claims this is almost entirely confined to the ROC. Well, maybe, but the ROC is 70% of Orthodoxy. Does he not see an issue here?
DeleteI rather think you're seeing what you want to see, after the manner of the Orthodox.
DeleteWow, you really can't do anything without mentioning the Orthodox, can you?
The only men presenting themselves for ordination are very conservative. "Bitter trads", in other words.
And the 'lilac mafia' of bishops determined to undermine the Church are ordaining these conservative men? That's very accommodating of them.
Vatican II hipsters
Yup, no bitterness or anger here.
The "smaller, purer" Church is inevitable as well as desirable.
And who will be Pope of this smaller Church? Or are the theories of a conspiracy among a cabal of liberal cardinals to select a liberal as Francis' replacement not true?
The only question is how much damage will the Church sustain before these men can start to turn things around.
Why, do you not trust the Holy Spirit to protect the Church?
For instance, he more or less admits there's a strong hostility towards Catholicism within Orthodoxy
Whereas you're just a glowing beacon of Christian hospitality. We are grateful that you manage to find some time in between being hostile towards your own Church to attack ours.
Well, maybe, but the ROC is 70% of Orthodoxy.
Anton, is that you?
No, the homosexuals who ordain these men will do so because there is simply on one else coming forward for ordination. It's them or no one. Yes, I trust the Holy Spirit to protect the Church. He's doing it by limiting the pool of seminarians to conservative men. It is not Catholic theology that the Holy Spirit chooses the pope. That's a very late (post Vatican I) idea and it's never been accepted into the magisterium. The pope is elected by politics. Bergoglio certainly was. The point is that the pool of candidates will be drawn tighter until whoever access to the throne will be a conservative. That's because the Catholic Church has a unique standing. I hope that clears it up for you. BTW, am I incorrect in assuming you are of the Russian branch of Orthodoxy?
DeleteLet's tone it down - this isn't Cranmer!
DeleteLain will correct HJ is he's wrong. but the correct way to frame this is there's one Orthodox Church with different Patriarchs. These have control of local churches and issues but not Orthodox dogma or doctrine.
From what HJ understands, the ROC is certainly more hostile to the Roman Catholic Church and is attempting to stake a claim for leadership of the Orthodox Church. Some reasons for suspicion from the East towards the West are given in those articles HJ posted to you (Rome's perceived excessive control of local churches). In the case of the ROC these have internal and geopolitical causes with doctrinal differences (perhaps?) being over stated.
Fair enough. I'll leave it at that and limit further comments on the subject of the Orthodox to my own blog. And thanks again for bringing Michael Warren Davis to my attention.
Delete@ Bell, yes, you are incorrect, I'm not in a Russian jurisdiction. Incidentally, lay Orthodox do not belong to a jurisdiction but are free to worship in any parish of any canonical jurisdiction. Only tonsured clergy and monastics belong to jurisdictions and need to apply to move between them, in much the same way that Catholic priests and religious are incardinated into a diocese but the laity can go wherever they wish.
Delete@ Jack - yes, the 'different' Orthodox churches are not separate churches, but something more like national archdioceses. The dogmas of the Church are set by the Councils, and no Patriarch has authority to change these, but (small t) traditions can vary locally according to pastoral needs and customs. Orthodox praxis is to establish local churches under local jurisdictions that worship in the vernacular (see Ss. Cyril and Methodius). However, jurisdictional issues have become complicated by the movement of Orthodox Christians to non-Orthodox countries without a local church. Understandably, they wished to bring their church with them, their patriarchates didn't wish to leave the faithful without pastoral oversight, and overlapping jurisdictions have arisen. But this has also happened with Ordinariates and autonomous Eastern Catholic particular churches; parochial structures conceived in the Middle Ages struggle with the modern mass movement of people and competing Christian communities.
The schism between Russia and Constantinople is what's supposed to happen when brother bishops cannot agree, it's a type of fraternal correction and Russia needs 'time out' to rethink its position. Both churches are still mutually in communion with other churches, so the schism is 'minor'. Really, it's what should be happening between Rome and the German bishops at this stage, IMO: being in communion isn't an administrative exercise, it's a statement of shared belief and Germany is busy reinventing the faith.
The ROC is hostile to pretty much anyone who isn't the ROC, in all honesty. It's a combination of Russian exclusivism (which views the West as a hotbed of heresy and moral decay, for reasons I can't fathom); the hangover of Peter the Great pulling a Henry VIII on the Church; the 16th century belief that Moscow is the Third Rome and should have primacy over Constantinople (as it's fallen); the ROC's belief that its role in preserving the faith alone in Europe while cut off from the rest of the Church by the Ottomans and Communists has never really been recognised; and historical antagonism between Moscow and Rome.
The latter was exacerbated by the crusades that the Teutonic Knights waged in NW Russia in the 13th century, the Dominicans attempting to convert central Russia in the 14th century and the turbulent relations between Russia and Catholic Poland (Christianised by Constantinople, for extra complexity). Russia, in turn, has vehemently viewed Rome as not just schismatic but outright heretical since the 11th century. Russia regularly accuses Catholic missionaries of 'poaching' the faithful, and has historically attempted to undermine Rome's authority. For example, when the Jesuit Order was suppressed in the late 1700s, the papal bull was not enacted in Russia and Catherine the Great provided refuge for fugitive Jesuits, whose scholarship she valued. She also established a Catholic diocese covering western Russia without papal authority. A millennia's worth of resentment and sour history is a lot to get over. The fallout (not, one hopes, atomic) from the Ukrainian war and Putin's weaponisation of the Church will either make the situation better or worse.
But, such things are above my pay grade. I have my own small furrow to plough and God will bang stiff-necked egos together and make all things new in his own time.
Don't misunderstand HJ. You're free to post comments on the Orthodox Church. It's just when it starts to get more personal it becomes unproductive. In fact, HJ would welcome an article from you for publishing here.
DeleteMichael Warren Davis has a wide range of published articles. He was once the editor-in-chief of Crisis Magazine and the editor of the USA Catholic Herald. What HJ likes about his blog is its "thinking aloud" quality. He's an interesting writer with an understanding of Church history. Whilst critical of Rome, he has a balanced perspective.
Maybe HJ can help me on this. I have recently been watching a video The cult many are in but don’t realize - YouTube
ReplyDeletewhich puts forward that the Hegelian Dialectic and the political systems based on it are a form of Gnosticism. Is this valid?
The title is The cult many are in but don’t realize
Deleteand the channel is TIKhistory
To be honest. HJ watched the video and really couldn't understand it! One suspects this chap will lead one down a rabbit hole.
Delete@ Jack - Hegelian Dialectics is basically the idea of smashing opposing concepts against each other until the 'Absolute Idea' (i.e., the end point towards which the Spirit of history is oriented) drops out of the other end of the process. It's similar to what Plato does with Socrates' dialogues, but using concepts instead of people. It was apparently favoured by Marx and Engels as a way of backing up their theory of economics.
DeleteModern critics argue that it's a way of keeping people stuck in a certain framework of thinking that inexorably moves towards a progressive utopia (or whatever). If you're forever arguing for or against a certain ideology, you're effectively advancing it. There's some truth in there, I think, but a lot of conspiracy theories. Hegel was New Agey and weird before it was popular.
@ Irishman - please see Lain's helpful response.
DeleteOf Hegel’s dialectic, developed in his Philosophy of History, Bertrand Russell writes:
DeleteIt was an interesting thesis, giving unity and meaning to the revolutions of human affairs. Like other historical theories, it required, if it was to be made plausible, some distortion of facts and considerable ignorance. Hegel, like Marx and Spengler after him, possessed both these qualifications.
—A History of Western Philosophy, p. 705
@ Ray - Russell is a fine one to talk! I enjoyed his History but, as Anthony Kenny (who produced his own fine A New History of Western Philosophy) puts it, Russell's work isn't 'overburdened by accuracy'. His Why I am not a Christian is an masterclass in poor scholarship and tilting at windmills.
DeleteLain has certainly joined a few of the dots. I am reminded of how, in “The Barbarism of Berlin” (1914), G.K.Chesterton writes of the Prussians:
ReplyDelete“There is an ominous and almost monstrous parallel between the position of their over-rated philosophers and of their comparatively under-rated soldiers.”
U.S. bishops issue a sharp rebuke to members of Congress who falsely claim that their pro-abortion stance is compatible with their Catholic faith (Fox News).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/us-catholic-bishops-issue-sharp-rebuke-pro-abortion-catholic-members-congress