Intrinsic impossibility


#1

Can two completely opposite theological views about God be considered fully Catholic?

The CCC teaches that God reveals Himself as a Father and thus we address him as “He”. The opposite theological view is that we can refer to God as a “she” because of the feminine metaphor “mother hen”, or “like a son comforted by his mother will I comfort you”

Would these two views be considered an intrinsic impossibility as far as being fully Catholic or Christian for that matter?


#2

[quote=TobyLue]Can two completely opposite theological views about God be considered fully Catholic?

The CCC teaches that God reveals Himself as a Father and thus we address him as “He”. The opposite theological view is that we can refer to God as a “she” because of the feminine metaphor “mother hen”, or “like a son comforted by his mother will I comfort you”

Would these two views be considered an intrinsic impossibility as far as being fully Catholic or Christian for that matter?
[/quote]

Because God is a spirit and therefore above petty, mortal gender identification constraints.


#3

[quote=Scott_Lafrance]Because God is a spirit and therefore above petty, mortal gender identification constraints.
[/quote]

But Jesus says, “Father”! :wink:


#4

Since you brought up the Catechism :smiley:

**CCC 370 **In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective “perfections” of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.

So, to answer your question…yes! Since man and woman are both in God’s image, He can comfort us like a mother comforts her son.

God Bless,

Robert.


#5

God revealed himself as Father, Son, and Spirit, and thus we use those names to refer to the persons of the Trinity. This does not preclude us from recognizing what might be considered ‘feminine’ qualities of God. Human fatherhood is derived from God, not vice-versa; God as a pure spirit has no gender, but is the source of all good qualities.


#6

[quote=TobyLue]The CCC teaches that God reveals Himself as a Father and thus we address him as “He”. The opposite theological view is that we can refer to God as a “she” because of the feminine metaphor “mother hen”, or “like a son comforted by his mother will I comfort you”

Would these two views be considered an intrinsic impossibility as far as being fully Catholic or Christian for that matter?
[/quote]

The metaphors don’t speak to gender, they speak to the action. I also concur with Scott’s comment, but would add that for some reason, God has revealed Himself as a Father figure. Who knows why?


#7

from CCC paragraph 239:

“…God transcends the human distinction between the sexes…”


#8

We all know that God is a perfect spirit and neither male or female, but God reveals himself as “Father”. In other words, male, masculine, he, him. etc. But if the words “he” and “she” are acceptable in referring to God, can somebody show me some official Church Document, like from Vatican II or from the CCC where the word “she” is used for God. I see countless references to God as “he”.


#9

[quote=TobyLue]We all know that God is a perfect spirit and neither male or female, but God reveals himself as “Father”. In other words, male, masculine, he, him. etc. But if the words “he” and “she” are acceptable in referring to God, can somebody show me some official Church Document, like from Vatican II or from the CCC where the word “she” is used for God. I see countless references to God as “he”.
[/quote]

I don’t think you’ll find any. You are correct, God reveals himself as “Father”. The point of my post (and I’m assuming the other similar responses) is that He has all of the emotional capabilities of mankind and can, therefore, love us as a mother. As far as I understand, this doesn’t mean the Church says it’s okay to call Him “she”/“her”/etc.

God Bless,

Robert.


#10

As far as I understand, this doesn’t mean the Church says it’s okay to call Him “she”/“her”/etc.

I totally agree. Cardinal Ratzinger in his book “The Ratzinger Report” says that “…we are not authorized to change the Our Father into an Our Mother: the symbolism employed by Jesus is irreversible…” What I am trying to understand is by what right, by what reason, or theological belief, those that refer to God as “she” insist on doing so. Can anybody out there enlighten me?


#11

TobyLue,

You asked, “What I am trying to understand is by what right, by what reason, or theological belief, those that refer to God as “she” insist on doing so. Can anybody out there enlighten me?”

As for “right”, well, I suppose we all have the right to be foolish. It’s not really a question of rights.

Their “theological belief” is not so much theological as it is political: people who fix on such things usually have some agenda they’re advancing. A feminist agenda seems likely, and to such people all of life is understood in terms of power: if God is understood as a “Father” and not “Mother”, then the masculine has all of the power and feminine does not. Does that make sense to you? I hope not, because those who view life through that lens are pathetic individuals with a poverty-stricken and dry idea of the right relationship between the sexes. So don’t expect them to make sense: they can’t when they have such a narrow view on life.


#12

[quote=TobyLue]I totally agree. Cardinal Ratzinger in his book “The Ratzinger Report” says that “…we are not authorized to change the Our Father into an Our Mother: the symbolism employed by Jesus is irreversible…” What I am trying to understand is by what right, by what reason, or theological belief, those that refer to God as “she” insist on doing so. Can anybody out there enlighten me?
[/quote]

It seems the common idea among the ancients that since God “gave birth” to the world, God must have something in common with a woman who gives birth. All of us were born from a woman (our mothers), hence, since God created[gave birth] to all, God is a “mother” to all. One reason perhaps comes from Julian of Norwich, a 14th-century English mystic who states:

[font=Microsoft Sans Serif]…. A mother can give her child milk to suck, but our precious mother, Jesus, can feed us with himself. He does so most courteously and most tenderly, with the Blessed Sacrament, which is the precious food of true life. With all the sweet sacraments he sustains us most mercifully and graciously. That is what he meant in these blessed words, where he said, ‘I am that which holy Church preaches and teaches you,’ that is to say, 'All the health and life of the sacraments, all the virtue and grace of my word, all the goodness that is ordained for you in holy Church, that I am.’

[/font]

Gerry :slight_smile:


#13

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.