Anglicans and Catholics

[Peter_J]

The argument Edwin is using at the moment is basically: If you think that “In Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female” has implications for who can be saved but not for who can be ordained, then aren’t you saying that there’s no link between ordination and salvation?

That, to me, is bad rhetoric, pretty much on a par with the “You don’t agree with me? Oh, so you think Christ was a liar.” form of rhetoric. (And lest anyone think that I’m just picking on him because he’s Protestant, let me point out that “You don’t agree with me? Oh, so you think Christ was a liar.” has been employed quite a few times on CAF by Catholic posters.)

 

[tomarin]

The argument Edwin is using at the moment is basically: If you think that “In Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female” has implications for who can be saved but not for who can be ordained, then aren’t you saying that there’s no link between ordination and salvation?

I thought the meat of his argument was that if women share in the same human nature that Christ took on in the Incarnation then there is no ontological reason why they cannot act in persona Christi. I don’t like the implication of that any more than you do (I’m opposed to women’s ordination) but I have yet to see anyone refute his argument.

That, to me, is bad rhetoric, pretty much on a par with the “You don’t agree with me? Oh, so you think Christ was a liar.” form of rhetoric. (And lest anyone think that I’m just picking on him because he’s Protestant, let me point out that “You don’t agree with me? Oh, so you think Christ was a liar.” has been employed quite a few times on CAF by Catholic posters.)

Well let’s leave aside the rhetoric and look at the reasoning behind his argument.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I’m not a Catholic - not yet anyway…but it is so sad to see the way Catholics and Protestants judge one another. Jesus Christ loves us all and He is the only judge.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks between Catholics and Protestants is the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Holy Rosary. To most Protestants praying to Mary is not Christian and the Holy Rosary is a meaningless prayer. And that is such a tragedy…because they just don’t know. Pray for them.

the Holy Rosary is not a meaningless prayer. it is made up of many prayers and it reminds us of the life of Jesus from the time of the annunciation to his ascension into heaven and the descent of the holy spirit. we recall his nativity and events in his childhood and his baptism in the jordan, his proclamation of the kingdom of God, the way of the cross, and the resurrection.

you are correct in that more protestants don’t try to become more informed about it rather than listen to hearsay.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As you probably know from reading the forum, I generally don’t exactly “see eye to eye” with gurneyhalleck1. But in this case I have to agree with him. He never said that “ordination has nothing to do with salvation” (are you trying to misinterpret his statement, or what?) but rather that the passage wasn’t about who can be ordained.

Wow, Peter. Thanks, I think? LOL…I have to be honest here, I think I could count on one hand how many times I “haven’t seen eye to eye” with you on theological matters? I was a bit taken aback by the opening statement here? I usually agree with the bulk of your positions and was surprised? On a literal plane, you definitely wouldn’t stand eye to eye with me. I’m 6’5" lol…

I had no idea we were so divergent:shrug:

 

[jay29]

Council of Nicaea I

Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in.this position although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity (canon 19 [A.D. 325]).

Council of Laodicea

[T]he so-called “presbyteresses” or “presidentesses” are not to be ordained in the Church (canon 11 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius

It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess (ibid.).

The Apostolic Constitutions (400 AD)

A widow is not ordained; yet if she has lost her husband a great while and has lived soberly and unblamably and has taken extraordinary care of her family, as Judith and Annaóthose women of great reputationólet her be chosen into the order of widows (ibid., 8:25).

A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women (ibid., 8:28).

 

[Peter_J]

Wow, Peter. Thanks, I think?

You’re welcome, I guess.

I thought the meat of his argument was that if women share in the same human nature that Christ took on in the Incarnation then there is no ontological reason why they cannot act in persona Christi.

In other posts perhaps, but not in the ones I was responding to.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re welcome, I guess.

In other posts perhaps, but not in the ones I was responding to.

I’m still trying to figure out where it is that we don’t see eye to eye?

 

[Peter_J]

I’m still trying to figure out where it is that we don’t see eye to eye?

If you don’t mind, I would prefer not to go reading through your posts again. If you want to take my word for it about ones that I disagree with, that’s fine; if not, that’s fine too.

 

[Contarini]

The argument Edwin is using at the moment is basically: If you think that “In Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female” has implications for who can be saved but not for who can be ordained, then aren’t you saying that there’s no link between ordination and salvation?

Yes.

That, to me, is bad rhetoric, pretty much on a par with the “You don’t agree with me? Oh, so you think Christ was a liar.” form of rhetoric.

No, it’s not. Accusing someone of thinking Christ was a liar is, as you note, a rhetorical insult. It is an intense way of saying “I don’t see how you can interpret this passage otherwise than as I do.” It doesn’t actually make an argument.

What I’m saying isn’t intended as a rhetorical flourish. It’s an argument. If you give me suggestions for how the argument can be repackaged so as not to offend you, I’m happy to take them. But the argument is simply that Galatians 3:21 has implications for who can be ordained. I’m not in fact claiming that it simply proves that women can be ordained. I’m claiming that the kind of gender equality taught by Galatians 3:21 (whatever that may turn out to be) pertains to salvation, and hence very likely has implications for who can be ordained. When gurneyhalleck simply dismisses this by saying “it’s not specifically talking about ordination,” he’s obviously separating ordination from salvation in some way.

Reductio in absurdum is a legitimate argument, when it is employed logically to show a specific consequence following from a position that your opponent has taken. That’s what I’m doing here. It’s quite different from accusing your opponent of holding something blasphemous (which could quite easily be rephrased in soberer and more charitable terms) simply for shock value.

We all know that no Christian thinks Christ was a liar. But it seems pretty clear to me that you guys are separating ordination from salvation in a way that I’m not. That’s quite possibly why you find my Christological argument unconvincing (you don’t see the link between sharing in Christ’s nature for salvation and acting sacramentally “in persona Christi”). Therefore my statement was not just “rhetoric,” whether good or bad, but was a serious argument. And I would appreciate it if you would treat it as such.

As a matter of fact, I think that the “you think Christ was a liar” rhetoric is sometimes justified. When dealing with an opponent who claims great piety but employs absurd sophistry to avoid the plain sense of Christ’s words (I’m thinking particularly of some dispensationalist interpretations of the passages talking about the need for works), sometimes shock tactics are in order. But this tactic must be used with caution: it is very bad rhetoric when trotted out every time someone interprets Jesus’ words differently. (And it probably has no positive effect–it’s more an expression of one’s own outrage than anything else.) It is, at any rate, something quite different from what I was doing.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If you don’t mind, I would prefer not to go reading through your posts again. If you want to take my word for it about ones that I disagree with, that’s fine; if not, that’s fine too.

As the kids would say in my sixth grade class…whatever. I’m just trying to figure out why you put me and a few other people with whom you disagree on your private IM club? A few of us were scratching our heads about that one. That seems contradictory but…I’ll take your word for it.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi contrarini and gurneyhalleck1,

Sigh … well there’s the old expression about trying to please both sides, and ending up pleasing no one.

But in this particular case I can take comfort in the fact that my post (#84, to be specific) was not an attempt to please both sides (or either side) but just to do what’s right.

 

[Peter_J]

P.S.

I’m just trying to figure out why you put me and a few other people with whom you disagree on your private IM club?

Certainly I have, at times, sent PMs to people with whom I do not see eye-to-eye (if I remember correctly I have sent a few to Contarini ). But not with the intention of harassing or abusing, so I don’t see why that’s a problem.

If you feel I’ve improperly contacted you (or anyone else) by PM, then I think you should complain about it to the moderators, rather than to the forum at large. Otherwise it appears that you’re just trying to punish me for not agreeing with your opinions.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

P.S.

Certainly I have, at times, sent PMs to people with whom I do not see eye-to-eye (if I remember correctly I have sent a few to Contarini ). But not with the intention of harassing or abusing, so I don’t see why that’s a problem.

If you feel I’ve improperly contacted you (or anyone else) by PM, then I think you should complain about it to the moderators, rather than to the forum at large. Otherwise it appears that you’re just trying to punish me for not agreeing with your opinions.

I’m definitely not trying to “punish” you for not agreeing with my opinions. Frankly, I can’t figure out which opinions you don’t agree with that I’ve stated? You’re the one that made the statement several posts back, “I don’t usually see eye to eye with Gurney” so you opened that can of worms. I just thought it was a back-handed, throwing someone under the bus while agreeing with them kind of statement, that’s all. I’ve put Contarini on ignore so I can’t read what bizarre and negative thing he’s saying about me. Furthermore I don’t care.

Most of the time, Peter, I agree with almost everything you say. You and I might have differences about how we go about our arguments, and that’s fine, but overall we are brothers not only in Christ but in the Catholic faith. I tend to always share your sentiments. I just found that statement of yours a bit back-handed…but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Case closed for me…

And no, I would never report you to moderators for an IM list…that’s silly.

 

[Peter_J]

Case closed for me…

Yes, it’s probably best that we don’t keep talking about it, as we’ve reached a kind of impasse: you’re obviously bothered that I said I don’t “see eye-to-eye” with you; for my part I find it a little creepy that you just assumed that I share your opinions and attitudes (excepting of course those which I’ve specifically said I disagree with). Do you just assume that I agree with the attitude expressed here: “I’ve put Contarini on ignore so I can’t read what bizarre and negative thing he’s saying about me.” until I say that I don’t? (Don’t answer that, unless you want to.)

 

[Contarini]

Hi contrarini and gurneyhalleck1,

Sigh … well there’s the old expression about trying to please both sides, and ending up pleasing no one.

But in this particular case I can take comfort in the fact that my post (#84, to be specific) was not an attempt to please both sides (or either side) but just to do what’s right.

Of course. But I wish you would be less focused on the “rhetoric” and more on the substance of the argument. I apologize if I have used unnecessarily insulting rhetoric. I wasn’t trying to be insulting at all. But I really want to know what you guys think the connection is between ordination and salvation, and how you think that connection allows Gal. 3:21 to be irrelevant to the question of women’s ordination.

The core argument I’m making is that precisely because Gal. 3:21 is about salvation (translated into the terms of developed Catholic Christology, it says that there is one human nature which Christ assumed for our salvation, making all believers members of Christ’s body irrespective of these various distinctions), it has implications for the question: “who can be ordained?” And I would like to see that argument addressed.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

Of course. But I wish you would be less focused on the “rhetoric” and more on the substance of the argument.

I’ll try.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes, it’s probably best that we don’t keep talking about it, as we’ve reached a kind of impasse: you’re obviously bothered that I said I don’t “see eye-to-eye” with you; for my part I find it a little creepy that you just assumed that I share your opinions and attitudes (excepting of course those which I’ve specifically said I disagree with). Do you just assume that I agree with the attitude expressed here: “I’ve put Contarini on ignore so I can’t read what bizarre and negative thing he’s saying about me.” until I say that I don’t? (Don’t answer that, unless you want to.)

Well I’m real sorry, pal, that you find me creepy. What I find objectionable is how you’ve tried to paint yourself an “internet reformer” and a calm, reasonable, even-tempered poster full of chartable exchange. The reality is you’re as hot-headed as anyone else in here. You send all of us these IM’s stating how upset you are when a poster disagrees with you and how we should all watch out for him?..a sort of 'he disagreed with me so all of you ignore him if you’re my friends…'I find that creepy. Heaven forbid someone disagree with PeterJ! I actually usually do agree with you but as of late you’ve been more willing to put people on ignore (I was cracking up when you criticized me as a fruitcake for using my ignore on Contarini lol when you’ve been quite honest about your willingness to ignore folks like when you recently threatened GKC with ignore), you have been caustic at times, and you’re no shrinking violet. I’m honest about my opinions and I’m more than willing to admit when I’m wrong or inappropriate. God knows I’ve had my moments. But your tone is one of trying to play the charitable reformer card while blasting away at certain people and making statements like that one earlier to me. You didn’t need the “eye to eye” comment but you threw me under the bus like I’ve seen you do to other people.

You still have yet to show where we’ve disagreed but in any case…my two cents (or five).

 

[Peter_J]

Well I’m real sorry, pal, that you find me creepy.

Hi gurneyhalleck1. I stopped reading your last post after the first sentence, because now you’re just blatantly twisting my words. I’ve been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt (as you also mentioned) but I’m not going to be a doormat.

Take care.
Sincerely,

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. I’m not ignoring that last five sentences of your post Contarini (i.e.

I apologize if I have used unnecessarily insulting rhetoric. I wasn’t trying to be insulting at all. But I really want to know what you guys think the connection is between ordination and salvation, and how you think that connection allows Gal. 3:21 to be irrelevant to the question of women’s ordination.

The core argument I’m making is that precisely because Gal. 3:21 is about salvation (translated into the terms of developed Catholic Christology, it says that there is one human nature which Christ assumed for our salvation, making all believers members of Christ’s body irrespective of these various distinctions), it has implications for the question: “who can be ordained?” And I would like to see that argument addressed.

Edwin

) I’ll come back later and take another look at what you’re saying – unless of course I wake up and realize that I only dreamt posting post #84.

 

[PeterJ]

Hahah. You have my name.