MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315702378 · doi:10.1177/00211400221144751

The Trinitarian Theologies of Bonaventure and Balthasar and the Ontological Objection to the Ordination of Women

2023· article· en· W4315702378 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIrish Theological Quarterly · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Philosophy and Theology
Canadian institutionsNewman Theological College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyTrinitarian theologyOrdinationTheologyEcclesiologyInversion (geology)Face (sociological concept)Body of ChristMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article aims to show that the ontological objection to women’s ordination fails to convince when examined in light of the trinitarian theologies of Bonaventure and Hans Urs von Balthasar. The former argued for the Incarnate Son of God as the coincidence of opposites of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and of Creator and creature; the latter expressed the difference between the immanent and economic Trinity by means of ‘trinitarian inversion,’ where the roles of the Son and the Holy Spirit in the immanent Trinity are reversed in the economic Trinity. Trinitarian inversion becomes central to the full configuration of men and women to Christ the High Priest. Restricting the ministerial priesthood to men is theologically unsound. Since both women and men, who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ (the ‘coincidence of opposites’), both are the face of Christ to and for the world.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it