Anglicans and Orthodox and the Eucharist

[GKC]

I can’t count how many times on this forum I have seen this claim made, that the RCC considers the Orthodox eucharist to be illicit. And yet, I don’t recall even once seeing the claim backed up by a source (well, other than a wikipedia page, which has this claim followed by “[citation needed]”).

Now I admit that I don’t always comment on the lack of source; nevertheless it bothers me more than I can say that such a strong (and negative) claim is tossed about without any source.

I’m not sure I can help you, though I certainly understand the idea of a good source. It is suggested that orders and sacraments dependent on orders, by logic, may be licit or not, though valid, in Ott, p. 458.

For my part, I have had discussions on the issue with RCs over the years. I have never heard the concept challenged before. So, for my part, you will continue to see such a reference, absent a definitive proof that it is incorrect. You are warned.

If you do come up with a definitive statement on your side, I’m eager to hear it. I don’t think UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO does it. Nor do I know if CIC Canon 955 is applicable.

In the end, since I’m no authority, what I say is of little consequence.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

I’m not sure I can help you, though I certainly understand the idea of a good source. It is suggested that orders and sacraments dependent on orders, by logic, may be licit or not, though valid, in Ott, p. 458.

Nobody’s questioning the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes the valid-but-illicit concept. (For example, if a Catholic gets himself ordained by a non-Catholic bishop, that ordination would surely be illicit even if it’s valid.) So I don’t think that Ott reference helps your assertion.

For my part, I have had discussions on the issue with RCs over the years. I have never heard the concept challenged before.

I’m afraid your memory today isn’t as good as it usually is: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3880670#post3880670

If you do come up with a definitive statement on your side, I’m eager to hear it. I don’t think UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO does it.

Does what? What claim did I make that I need to substantiate?

The only claim that I’ve made here is that you haven’t (thus far) provided a source for your claim that the Catholic Church said that Orthodox orders and illicit. Am I wrong? If you provided a source, and I missed it, then I will definitely retract and apologize.

So, for my part, you will continue to see such a reference, absent a definitive proof that it is incorrect. You are warned.

In other words, “I’m going to keep saying that the RCC has said X, until somebody proves that it hasn’t”?? Give me a break!

 

[GKC]

Nobody’s questioning the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes the valid-but-illicit concept. (For example, if a Catholic gets himself ordained by a non-Catholic bishop, that ordination would surely be illicit even if it’s valid.) So I don’t think that Ott reference helps your assertion.

I’m afraid your memory today isn’t as good as it usually is: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3880670#post3880670

Does what? What claim did I make that I need to substantiate?

The only claim that I’ve made here is that you haven’t (thus far) provided a source for your claim that the Catholic Church said that Orthodox orders and illicit. Am I wrong? If you provided a source, and I missed it, then I will definitely retract and apologize.

In other words, “I’m going to keep saying that the RCC has said X, until somebody proves that it hasn’t”?? Give me a break!

I fear that I miscommunicated. Yes, I recall you saying that, before.

I don’t claim that you are making a claim. I claim that you and I are each stating what we understand to be the RC doctrine. And yes, absent a definitive example proving the contrary, I will continue to do so. I expect you will do the same. IOW, neither your, nor my ispe dixit is sufficient to cause the other to change.

However, a point or two. Ott also mentions the requirement for ordination to be done per episcopus proprius, for it to be licit. How would that be looked at, in the Orthodox case, in your opinion?

And how would you expect the RCC to distinguish Orthodox, OC or PNCC orders and sacraments, from those in communion with Rome? In any fashion? In no fashion?

Just curious.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

And yes, absent a definitive example proving the contrary, I will continue to do so.

Fine. And I’ll say “The Anglican Church has said _____________” (I haven’t decided yet what I’m going to put in that blank) and then whenever anyone asks me when the Anglican Church said _____________, I’ll just respond “Well, can you prove that the Anglican Church hasn’t ever said _____________?”

 

[GKC]

Fine. And I’ll say “The Anglican Church has said _____________” (I haven’t decided yet what I’m going to put in that blank) and then whenever anyone asks me when the Anglican Church said _____________, I’ll just respond “Well, can you prove that the Anglican Church hasn’t ever said _____________?”

Heck, given the state of the Anglican Church, you would most likely be correct.

Whatever the proper explanation of the RCC attitude on the subject, absent a definitive reference from either of us, it’s simple for each of us to say "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur", and continue on as before. And I suppose each will.

I have no particular emotional, or theological investment in the subject. It isn’t invented
ex nihilo, or to support some other, more pertinent point, it’s merely what I have gleaned from a few years of discussions on boards, and reading, mainly in the penumbra of the Apostolicae Curae affair. If it is not so, so be it. But I will require something to show it is not so, and how the other valid, schismatic sacraments are distinguished from those of the RCC, by the RCC, if they are (as I think they are).

Now, what say you about those Anglicans?

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Whatever the proper explanation of the RCC attitude on the subject, absent a definitive reference from either of us, it’s simple for each of us to say "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur", and continue on as before. And I suppose each will.

It really wouldn’t be “as before”, inasmuch as you would then be on my Ignore List. (I’m not interested in conversation with anyone who says “The RCC says ______ . I don’t need to tell you when that happened, I can just keep asserting that it happened until someone proves that it never happened.”)

In a way, I guess I should just put you on my ignore list now and be done with the matter, since you don’t seem at all inclined to be reasonable.

I claim that you and I are each stating what we understand to be the RC doctrine.

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? What I’m stating is that it is unreasonable for you to keep saying "The RCC said ______ " without telling us when the RCC said ______ .

P.S.

… absent a definitive reference from either of us …

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can: I am NOT going to attempt to prove that the Catholic Church NEVER said “Orthodox sacraments are illicit.” I don’t know whether the RCC has said “Orthodox sacraments are illicit.” When you claim that someone said something, it is your responsibility to provide some kind of evidence. (Hence my example about saying “The Anglican Church said ______”, which you apparently decided to turn into a joke.)

 

[GKC]

It really wouldn’t be “as before”, inasmuch as you would then be on my Ignore List. (I’m not interested in conversation with anyone who says “The RCC says ______ . I don’t need to tell you when that happened, I can just keep asserting that it happened until someone proves that it never happened.”)

In a way, I guess I should just put you on my ignore list now and be done with the matter, since you don’t seem at all inclined to be reasonable.

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? What I’m stating is that it is unreasonable for you to keep saying "The RCC said ______ " without telling us when the RCC said ______ .

P.S.

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can: I am NOT going to attempt to prove that the Catholic Church NEVER said “Orthodox sacraments are illicit.” I don’t know whether the RCC has said “Orthodox sacraments are illicit.” When you claim that someone said something, it is your responsibility to provide some kind of evidence. (Hence my example about saying “The Anglican Church said ______”, which you apparently decided to turn into a joke.)

Often the Anglican Church is a joke.

Otherwise, ok.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. It gives me absolutely no pleasure to speak so to a fellow Christian, especially during the Octave of Easter. I respect Protestants, and I would never say “The Anglican Communion (or TAC, ELCA, LCMS, etc.) said ______ . I don’t need to tell you when that happened, I can just keep asserting that it happened until someone proves that it never happened”, and it truly saddens me when someone flat-out refuses to give me the same respect.

 

[GKC]

P.S. It gives me absolutely no pleasure to speak so to a fellow Christian, especially during the Octave of Easter. I respect Protestants, and I would never say “The Anglican Communion (or TAC, ELCA, LCMS, etc.) said ______ . I don’t need to tell you when that happened, I can just keep asserting that it happened until someone proves that it never happened”, and it truly saddens me when someone flat-out refuses to give me the same respect.

I share your distaste for the circumstances. But, as I see it, I am giving you precisely what I am asserting for myself. I don’t require you to document what you are saying, accepting that it is your understanding of the teaching of the RCC. Though I have no idea why you apparently think it is traducing the RCC to believe it teaches as I do.

I note that I have asked how the RCC would differentiate a valid, schismatic Eucharist (say, PNCC) from a RCC Eucharist, and how this would relate to a similar judgment on an Othodox Eucharist, if there is no distinction beyond “valid”, and given that the RCC does affirm that schismatic orders confect valid sacraments. As I understand it, but cannot support, there is a further distinction, that of licit/illicit,or lawfulness, as referenced in Ott, same page, with respect to the requirement for licit (as opposed to valid) orders. I have arrived at this position after about 8 years of online discussions and a great deal of reading in the peripheral areas. No one I have talked to, prior to yourself, found it to be an exceptional concept. If it’s wrong, I certainly don’t understand how the RCC makes any distinction between a valid RC sacrament and a valid, schismatic one. But that doesn’t have any bearing on my own beliefs, say on Anglican orders, my main interest. Nor are my beliefs in any sense a slander on the RCC.

If you can’t prove I’m wrong, and I can’t prove you’re wrong, then there we are. Anyone else got a contribution?

GKC

 

[PJM]

=Monica4316;5071928] I have two questions that I’m wondering about…

I heard the Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox have a valid Eucharist, but the Anglicans do not, and this has something to do with Apostolic Succession.
is this true?

Very well expressed question. Your understanding is correct anf here is why.

1. The Anglican Church is not simply is Schism from the Roman Pontiff, they hold other theological positions that do not confrom to The Catholic Church.
2. They claim to have “Apolostolic Succession” but how can this be when the AC did not began until more than 1500 after the death of Christ?
3. The Orthodox have much historical proof of having been started by one of the Apostles.

If so, why do the Orthodox have Apostolic Succession, and why do Anglicans do not?

Because of the physical historical evidence that favors Orthodox but NO evidence, only unsubstanuated claims from the AC.

(I’m looking for the Catholic perspective on this but other perspectives are welcome too).

thank you

I was also wondering, do only the Catholic and the Orthodox churches have the Eucharist? (the Real Presence)… do all Protestants not have it, even if they believe in it? why is Apostolic Succession important for having the Eucharist? (in other words…why does a validly ordained priest need to do it)

There are 22 branches of the Catholic Church; all have all Seven sacraments including Chist Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.

Why? Because that is what Jesus Himself set up.

Please look at Luke 22:19-21 and 1 Cor. 12: 23-26. take special note of the words of Jesus Himself. "Do this in memory of Me"

It is with these exact words that Jesus instituted the Catholic Priesthood, who ALONE have this power, this wounderous GIFT of God, By God and For God!

With the words found in Mt. 26: 26-28, Mk. 14:22-24, and the two above, Luke 22: 19-21. and 1 Cor. 12: 23-26, that Jesus institued the Sacrament of Himself in Holy Communion.

John 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him*. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58* This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

And when many left Jesus because they would not accept His Word, He did not try to stop them. In fact He ask Peter and the Apostles if they too wish to leave Him?

John 6: 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68* Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

I’m not questioning this btw, I believe what the Church teaches I just want to know…

I have a Protestant friend who believes in the Real Presence and believes that Jesus is present in any Communion: even when people think it’s a symbol. She doesn’t believe the consecration is necessary. I’d disagree, but we can also say that we know where the Eucharist is, not where it isn’t?

**Nope, Jesus did not give anyone except Peter and His apostles this power! It is the single GREATEST reason to become a Catholic! ** Its nice that your frind hold this belief, but that sadly is all that it is.

I know it’s in the Church for sure

Love and prayers,

 

[GKC]

Very well expressed question. Your understanding is correct anf here is why.

1. The Anglican Church is not simply is Schism from the Roman Pontiff, they hold other theological positions that do not confrom to The Catholic Church.
2. They claim to have “Apolostolic Succession” but how can this be when the AC did not began until more than 1500 after the death of Christ?
3. The Orthodox have much historical proof of having been started by one of the Apostles.

Because of the physical historical evidence that favors Orthodox but NO evidence, only unsubstanuated claims from the AC.

There are 22 branches of the Catholic Church; all have all Seven sacraments including Chist Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.

Why? Because that is what Jesus Himself set up.

Please look at Luke 22:19-21 and 1 Cor. 12: 23-26. take special note of the words of Jesus Himself. "Do this in memory of Me"

It is with these exact words that Jesus instituted the Catholic Priesthood, who ALONE have this power, this wounderous GIFT of God, By God and For God!

With the words found in Mt. 26: 26-28, Mk. 14:22-24, and the two above, Luke 22: 19-21. and 1 Cor. 12: 23-26, that Jesus institued the Sacrament of Himself in Holy Communion.

John 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him*. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58* This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

And when many left Jesus because they would not accept His Word, He did not try to stop them. In fact He ask Peter and the Apostles if they too wish to leave Him?

John 6: 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68* Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

**Nope, Jesus did not give anyone except Peter and His apostles this power! It is the single GREATEST reason to become a Catholic! ** Its nice that your frind hold this belief, but that sadly is all that it is.

Love and prayers,

Without arguing with any of this, it is simply not why the RCC says that Anglicanism doesn’t possess apostolic succession, say, as it does hold that it is found in schismatic groups such as the old OCs, and the PNCC. The judgment rendered on the Anglican orders and apostolic succession, is found in Leo XIII’s Bull, Apostolicae Curae, (1896) and is based on a interpretation of the form for ordination/consecration as found in the Anglican Edwardine Ordinal between 1559 and 1662, along with a judgement on the intent (in the sacramental sense) of those who used the Ordinal. It has nothing to do with any position or belief held by Anglicans, at that time or before, except in respect to the form and intent of their consecrations, after 1559.

Apostolicae Curae can be googled.

GKC

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The sacerdotal priest stands in persona cristi and therefore must be male as Christ is male. A mother cannot be a father. Secondly, scripture loudly shows us that the priesthood should only be male in that Israel had a male-only priesthood firstly and additionally Christ only ordained men as apostles.

So what happens to the notion that Jesus had a mission to all men, & not only to Jews ?​

Some say that Christ was only ordaining men because people in those days were intolerant of an empowered woman and no one would have stood for it.

That is sometimes used to defend the ordination only of men…​

Boloney. Jesus has never been one to be afraid to buck the system. If He had wanted female bishops, He’d have ordained them.

If He had wanted Gentiles…, likewise. He ordained no Gentiles. Therefore, ordaining Gentiles is an abuse & a sin. It deforms the practice of Christ. The fact that it is an ancient abuse, does not make it not an abuse. As you say, “Jesus [w]as never…one to be afraid to buck the system”. So what is so toxic about sticking to his example ?​

For starters, can you think of two of the GREATEST Christian women of all time?..

That is not for us to say, but only for Him. The truth is, we have no way of knowing. The squabbling over amongst the disciples over who was the greatest is our model here.​

The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Lazarus’ sisters, Martha and Mary…all these women were cherished and loved by Jesus. Heck, Mary was chosen out of all women to be the Mother of God and Mary Magdalene blessed with seeing Jesus right after the resurrection in a special way. Jesus blessed women right and left…but He chose not to ordain these women. If He wouldn’t ordain these ladies, that speaks pretty strongly to the fact that women are not in consideration by God for this role.

That is very dubious: it shows no more than that they, as them, had a different mission in the Church from the Apostles; not that no woman would ever or could ever be ordained. What you have to show, or someone has, is that the ordination only of men is constitutive of the Church for all time; that the action (& non-action) of Jesus is an exemplary action (& non-action). But if it is, then no Gentiles can ever be ordained. Yet it is notorious & undeniable that most priests have not been Jews at all, but Gentiles.​

All are equal in Christ as the NT says but not all are to be “called” to the same roles. Men are not called to be mothers yet men are equal to women? We are all blessed in different ways.

Granted - but how is that an evidence or a proof that no woman, anywhere, under any circumstances, can ever be ordained ? The argument & the conclusion don’t match; they seem to come from different argumements against ordaining women.​

I fail to see why this women’s ordination social-justice slant trumps 2,000 years of solid theology in this matter? At best one would logically ere on the side of caution.

Agreed, as to the social justice argument; to be at all persuasive, it needs much more honing. But why the caution ? A similar argument may have been made against ordaining negroes; Jesus called no negroes, & ordained none. As for Jews - after the 1480s, many Spanish religious societies had statutes against ordaining them; after all, they came from a people hateful to God & under His curse. Thre are always excellent arguments doing what one can or should; & the best are the theological ones, because they provide a Divine sanction for not doing what is right: they sanctify the status quo, & canonise it. And Jesus often upset the status quo.​

The Church never used to ordain blind men, nor epileptics - it now allows both to be ordained. But there were all sorts of good reasons based on the Bible & its use that were treated as prohibiting their ordination. Once the thinking changed, the impossible & unthinkable became thinkable & actual. Before one changes, change can seem impossible & wrong for all sorts of very good reasons. That’s just human nature.

And despite many liberal-minded Anglicans’ views of the Roman Catholic Church, they should look at Rome and Orthodoxy and take a cue from them regarding what constitutes a priesthood. It is not anti-woman to be against female ordination. It’s backed by scripture, tradition, reason, all parts of the Anglican three-legged stool. The first two are the most important…“God’s ways are not always our ways…” that’s a tough one to remember sometimes…

In Christ,
Scott

And because they are not “[our] ways”, the arguments against the current prohibition lose some of their force…​

 

[Peter_J]

I share your distaste for the circumstances. But, as I see it, I am giving you precisely what I am asserting for myself. I don’t require you to document what you are saying, accepting that it is your understanding of the teaching of the RCC. Though I have no idea why you apparently think it is traducing the RCC to believe it teaches as I do.

I note that I have asked how the RCC would differentiate a valid, schismatic Eucharist (say, PNCC) from a RCC Eucharist, and how this would relate to a similar judgment on an Othodox Eucharist, if there is no distinction beyond “valid”, and given that the RCC does affirm that schismatic orders confect valid sacraments. As I understand it, but cannot support, there is a further distinction, that of licit/illicit,or lawfulness, as referenced in Ott, same page, with respect to the requirement for licit (as opposed to valid) orders. I have arrived at this position after about 8 years of online discussions and a great deal of reading in the peripheral areas. No one I have talked to, prior to yourself, found it to be an exceptional concept. If it’s wrong, I certainly don’t understand how the RCC makes any distinction between a valid RC sacrament and a valid, schismatic one. But that doesn’t have any bearing on my own beliefs, say on Anglican orders, my main interest. Nor are my beliefs in any sense a slander on the RCC.

If you can’t prove I’m wrong, and I can’t prove you’re wrong, then there we are. Anyone else got a contribution?

Number 1, I’ve asked you already not to put words in my mouth. I never contradicted the assertion that the RCC has said “Orthodox sacraments are illicit.” Actually I’m perfectly open to the possibility that the RCC did say that. What I claimed is that you need to show that the RCC has said “Orthodox sacraments are illicit.”

Number 2, even if I did say “The RCC never said that Orthodox sacraments are illicit”, it’s still completely unfair for you to say "If you can’t prove I’m wrong, and I can’t prove you’re wrong … " as if there were symmetry between those two things. There’s no symmetry between trying to prove that the RCC did say X, and trying to prove that the RCC didn’t say X.

To revise my earlier example (which involved the Anglican Communion), how would it be if someone said “The TAC said ________” and then, when questioned on this assertion, defended it by saying “Well, can you prove that the TAC never said ________ ? If you can’t prove that it wasn’t said, then why should I stop claiming that it was said?” (This would be comparable, would it not, to what you said in post #41? I.e. “So, for my part, you will continue to see such a reference, absent a definitive proof that it is incorrect. You are warned.”)

 

[GKC]

Number 1, I’ve asked you already not to put words in my mouth. I never contradicted the assertion that the RCC has said “Orthodox sacraments are illicit.” Actually I’m perfectly open to the possibility that the RCC did say that. What I claimed is that you need to show that the RCC has said “Orthodox sacraments are illicit.”

Number 2, even if I did say “The RCC never said that Orthodox sacraments are illicit”, it’s still completely unfair for you to say "If you can’t prove I’m wrong, and I can’t prove you’re wrong … " as if there were symmetry between those two things. There’s no symmetry between trying to prove that the RCC did say X, and trying to prove that the RCC didn’t say X.

To revise my earlier example (which involved the Anglican Communion), how would it be if someone said “The TAC said ________” and then, when questioned on this assertion, defended it by saying “Well, can you prove that the TAC never said ________ ? If you can’t prove that it wasn’t said, and I can’t prove that it was said, then there we are.”

I assure that I never attempted to put words into your mouth, nor, I can assure you, will there be an occasion in the future for you to be further mistaken on the subject.

Still, I do wonder about the questions I raised. They were part of the conversations I had with a number of well-read RCs, over the years, as to how the RCC distinguished amongst valid sacraments, as I mentioned. Do not be alarmed; I don’t expect you to know.

Anyone?

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Number 1, I’ve asked you already not to put words in my mouth. I never contradicted the assertion that the RCC has said “Orthodox sacraments are illicit.” Actually I’m perfectly open to the possibility that the RCC did say that. What I claimed is that you need to show that the RCC has said “Orthodox sacraments are illicit.”

Number 2, even if I did say “The RCC never said that Orthodox sacraments are illicit”, it’s still completely unfair for you to say "If you can’t prove I’m wrong, and I can’t prove you’re wrong … " as if there were symmetry between those two things. There’s no symmetry between trying to prove that the RCC did say X, and trying to prove that the RCC didn’t say X.

To revise my earlier example (which involved the Anglican Communion), how would it be if someone said “The TAC said ________” and then, when questioned on this assertion, defended it by saying “Well, can you prove that the TAC never said ________ ? If you can’t prove that it wasn’t said, and I can’t prove that it was said, then there we are.”

And this is all the reply I am to expect?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So what happens to the notion that Jesus had a mission to all men, & not only to Jews ?​

That is sometimes used to defend the ordination only of men…​

If He had wanted Gentiles…, likewise. He ordained no Gentiles. Therefore, ordaining Gentiles is an abuse & a sin. It deforms the practice of Christ. The fact that it is an ancient abuse, does not make it not an abuse. As you say, “Jesus [w]as never…one to be afraid to buck the system”. So what is so toxic about sticking to his example ?​

That is not for us to say, but only for Him. The truth is, we have no way of knowing. The squabbling over amongst the disciples over who was the greatest is our model here.​

That is very dubious: it shows no more than that they, as them, had a different mission in the Church from the Apostles; not that no woman would ever or could ever be ordained. What you have to show, or someone has, is that the ordination only of men is constitutive of the Church for all time; that the action (& non-action) of Jesus is an exemplary action (& non-action). But if it is, then no Gentiles can ever be ordained. Yet it is notorious & undeniable that most priests have not been Jews at all, but Gentiles.​

Granted - but how is that an evidence or a proof that no woman, anywhere, under any circumstances, can ever be ordained ? The argument & the conclusion don’t match; they seem to come from different argumements against ordaining women.​

Agreed, as to the social justice argument; to be at all persuasive, it needs much more honing. But why the caution ? A similar argument may have been made against ordaining negroes; Jesus called no negroes, & ordained none. As for Jews - after the 1480s, many Spanish religious societies had statutes against ordaining them; after all, they came from a people hateful to God & under His curse. Thre are always excellent arguments doing what one can or should; & the best are the theological ones, because they provide a Divine sanction for not doing what is right: they sanctify the status quo, & canonise it. And Jesus often upset the status quo.​

The Church never used to ordain blind men, nor epileptics - it now allows both to be ordained. But there were all sorts of good reasons based on the Bible & its use that were treated as prohibiting their ordination. Once the thinking changed, the impossible & unthinkable became thinkable & actual. Before one changes, change can seem impossible & wrong for all sorts of very good reasons. That’s just human nature.

And because they are not “[our] ways”, the arguments against the current prohibition lose some of their force…​

Gottle,

Jesus didn’t ordain spider monkeys either but I’m confident that it’s not kosher. You gave me a laundry list of what Jesus didn’t mention to fuel the debate. What I notice from your argument, and some of it is actually quite good, kudos, is that you never give real concrete or serious reasons why women SHOULD be ordained to my satisfaction anyway. You go on and on about which people, be it Africans or epileptics, were never forbidden and by that logic I’m to assume that anyone is then able to be ordained. I don’t find that argument compelling at all.

Regarding Gentiles, that is spoken of in scripture by Paul, the Blessed Apostle himself. And it is spoken of between the apostles. Peter goes through a crisis about whether they should be admitted to the community, etc. So, where I don’t see your argument being effective is, we see gentiles being admitted and ordained, despite Jesus Himself not mentioning it. Paul was an inspired apostle with a deep relationship with the risen Christ. The NT makes a great case as to the gentiles entering the fold. What we DO NOT see is women being part of that equation. And then follow that up with 2,000 years of tradition saying no to it and I’ll take that as more legit than your argument, with all due respect to you (and I mean that, trust me).

Also, I would hardly compare a few Catholic not wanting to ordain Jews in the Middle Ages to women’s ordination. Apples and oranges to be sure.

Your argument is focused on omissions. Please tell me at least five reasons that are apostolic, traditional, and scriptural why women SHOULD be ordained…

I’d like you to also state your opinion clearly. Are you in favor of women’s ordination? Your profile shows you as a Roman Catholic. Are you in favor of it or just trying to poke holes in my argument? Just curious. Your post was mostly just critical with no thesis taken. Please clarify. Thanks! God bless…
Scott

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Gottle,

So, basically we have the argument that only men should be ordained because Jesus chose 12 men to be the 12 Apostles. Then we have the objection that Gentiles are permitted to be ordained, despite the fact that Jesus chose 12 Jews to be the 12 Apostles.

This is, I would say, a very important objection, but there are good responses to it. Permit me to point out two differences between on the one hand, Jesus’ lack of female Apostles, and on the other hand his lack of Gentile Apostles.

First, Jesus’ disciples, in general, included quite a lot of women, but very few gentiles.

Second, the New Testament overall presents a picture of “The Way” starting in Judaism, but incorporating the Gentiles more and more as time went on.

There you have it (in a very small nutshell).

 

[CAS64]

Often the Anglican Church is a joke.

Otherwise, ok.

GKC

That was pretty rude and opinionated.

 

[GKC]

That was pretty rude and opinionated.

Sure was, among other things.

GKC

 

[jay29]

Hairspray?

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/03hx6Jw1gD8Va/340x.jpg