Can I attend an Episcopalian service?

[Khalid]

I mean, I do this as an Anglican (I am unwilling to say categorically that women should be ordained, even though the theological arguments for it seem very strong to me, because of my respect for the Pope and the bishops in communion with him), so I’d expect you to respect the authorities of your own Church at least as much as I do.

I’m not opposed to the reinstatement of the order of Deaconesses if that’s what you’re referring to by “ordination of women”, if such an order would ever become required. If you’re talking about the presbyterate or episcopate - what good arguments? (In honesty, I’d love to hear them, and, if you have them, you should publish them, because the currently well-known advocates of the practice are as intellectually honest as a Darwinist in a young-earth creationist convention, or a Mormon arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness.)

I’ve heard a bunch of feminist-form liberation theology, with an odd con-fusion of both second and third-wave feminism repackaged and thrown in, sometimes done with a modicum of skill and style (Fee, McCarthy), and sometimes done with the subtlety of Stalin’s atheism (Scanzoni, Molenkott), and sometimes with the force of a yellow journalist and conspiracy theorist, who thinks the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wants to burn them (Elaine Pagels) - but good or solid theological (or even philosophical) argumentation? Never!*

*Unless it’s the kind of theological argumentation that argues it’s good to “mute the ancient and alien patriarchy of Biblical culture in order to appeal to the modern male with a liberal-arts degree and twenty hours of sensitivity training” - because, you know, that really strong gender-neutering just makes some of the Biblical text incomprehensible, not more applicable to women. Liberal men seem to prefer it more than any other cohort. (Not that I’m knocking the NRSV particularly, because it’s better than the NABRE.)

 

[Cavaradossi]

I take back what I just said, your religion is not apostolic and cannot claim to because of a round about track. If you are not currently uder the pope then you cannot be aposstolic. Because only the pope can be traced to the apostles, not St. Augistine of Canturbury. He could not have been acting on behalf of the pope be cause how could the pope authorize the formation of another religion, since he knows that there is only one true religion and that all others are false.

Lol, so only the pope can be traced back to the Apostles? Now that’s news to me. The Catholic Church, if I recall, teaches differently, that several other churches (which you would disparage as being different “religions”) possess apostolic succession and valid orders, none of which are under the pope.

 

[Contarini]

If you’re talking about the presbyterate or episcopate - what good arguments? (In honesty, I’d love to hear them, and, if you have them, you should publish them, because the currently well-known advocates of the practice are as intellectually honest as a Darwinist in a young-earth creationist convention, or a Mormon arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness.)

Khalid,

I have given my arguments many times on this forum, and I’m a bit weary of endlessly repeating them. I perhaps should publish them, but they aren’t as new as you might think (I take your point that most of the arguments one hears for women’s ordination are pretty empty, relying largely on cultural consensus). I took the key element of my argument–the patristic contention that what is not assumed is not saved, which forbids us to say that the human nature Jesus took on for our salvation was specifically male in ways that are salvifically relevant–from the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey. Perhaps these arguments are less often made in a Catholic context.

The argument has two sides: a primary theological one and a supporting historical one. “Feminist” considerations enter, if at all, only into the latter, although they are invariably introduced (in my experience) by conservatives, who insist that I am somehow accusing the Fathers of “sexism” even though I do not use that language, and who repeatedly claim that if Jesus had thought women’s ordination was possible He would certainly have chosen women to be among the Twelve, because Jesus was so counter-cultural and such a champion of women (which is one of the more utterly threadbare arguments put forward on either side of this issue).

The theological argument goes like this:

1. What is not assumed is not saved.
2. Therefore, the Logos assumed our common human nature for our salvation.
3. Both the baptismal and the ministerial priesthoods consist of sacramental identification with Christ based on His assumption of human nature for our salvation.
4. To say that women are ontologically incapable of being ordained is to say that Christ did not assume “their” nature for our salvation, which ought logically to imply that they cannot be baptized and cannot be saved.
5. In short, anyone who is ontologically incapable of ordination is ontologically incapable of baptism.

The historical argument, which answers the question why the Fathers and other Doctors of the Church did not argue in the manner outlined above, goes like this:

1. The Fathers and the medieval scholastics all teach that there is one common human nature, which men instantiate more perfectly than women. This is most clearly seen in Aquinas, but something like it is implicit in most of the Fathers. (Gregory of Nyssa might be an exception, because he holds a more “Origenist” view in which sexual differentiation itself is “lower” than the unified, androgynous nature in which we would have been created if not for God’s foreknowledge of the Fall.)
2. The modern “complementarian” view in which human beings have a bifurcated nature, male and female, each of which embodies our common humanity equally (but differently), is an unwarranted innovation in Christian theological anthropology. While it appears to respect Tradition, it actually breaks with it radically.
3. The ordination of women, in contrast, is a break with traditional practice, but is thoroughly justified by the anthropological and Christological principles upheld by the Fathers and the scholastics, applied to a cultural context in which it is assumed that women embody human nature just as perfectly as men do.
4. In short, the “conservative” position can only be truly traditional if conservatives are willing to argue that females are imperfect males. This assumption is not an incidental detail which can be discarded. In order to maintain the male-only priesthood as an ontological necessity, while rejecting the view that females are imperfect males, you have to innovate radically in Christian anthropology–essentially “destroying the village in order to save it” (with regard to adherence to the Tradition).

Insofar as this is a “feminist” argument, the “feminist” principles involved are those that Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II and nearly every other “conservative” Catholic theologian would uphold. I am not arguing that the “established” Catholic position as articulated by JPII, etc., is a sexist one. I’m assuming that it isn’t. I’m accepting the protestations of conservative Catholics (and Anglicans) to believe that women and men are fully equal in dignity in every way, and I’m arguing that on that basis the ontological necessity of the male-only priesthood is theologically incoherent.

Also note the phrase “ontological necessity.” You could argue, as Protestant “complementarians” do, that only men ought to be ordained, and that would be a different argument altogether. In fact, Aquinas’s language seems to me to be a lot more like that of Protestant complementarians than like that of Catholics–he says that women ought not to be ordained because they don’t have the proper “hegemonic faculty” and thus shouldn’t hold any position involving authority and governance. (Of course, this involves the “imperfect male” view again, but if we aren’t making ontological arguments we have more flexibility to tweak the position–and, again, that’s what most Protestant “complementarians” do.)

Perhaps I should try to get this argument published. It’s true that I’ve never seen anyone work it out in quite this way before. . . .

Oh, and I basically agree with your position on the NRSV. I make my intro Bible students use it, because they are all used to the NIV and the NRSV is a good contrast (and IMHO a considerably better translation than the NIV, for all its faults). But I treat them to a rant on the way the NRSV messes up “ben-Adam” in the Old Testament, especially Daniel!

Edwin

 

[Izdaari]

Maybe you can’t (as a Catholic). But I can, as an Assemblies of God member. I, and several others from my AG congregation, love to attend the Compline service at (Episcopal) St. Mark’s Cathedral in Seattle. They are known for it, it’s beyond lovely, and is broadcast live on the local classical music station.

 

[Khalid]

I would definitely elaborate on and publish the theological argument. I neither immediately perceive any obviously incorrect premises (beyond the possibility of general “human” nature, i.e. the instantiated form of rational animal, in the hypostatic union, undivided and undifferentiated * which, however, isn’t immediately obvious how it would - if it would at all - affect the conclusion*, and a quibble about the application of the concept of “baptismal priesthood”, which I am not altogether certain is ontologically equivalent to the priesthood of Orders - I have a feeling if premises are to be rejected or modified, it is there) nor any bad logic (although, I think you could tighten it up in to a series of syllogisms) - which are immediately apparent in every other defense I’ve seen - but I have the nagging feeling it’s there (probably more due to my prior certitude that women can’t be ordained, and Paul’s writings, than out of philosophic enquiry). It’s much more rigorous than anything I’ve ever seen before, but I don’t read the Christian feminist literature (viz. “ontology” is a foreign concept to most promoters of priestesses).

*Which objection is essentially summed up in point 1 of your historical argument,

1. The Fathers and the medieval scholastics all teach that there is one common human nature, which men instantiate more perfectly than women. This is most clearly seen in Aquinas, but something like it is implicit in most of the Fathers. (Gregory of Nyssa might be an exception, because he holds a more “Origenist” view in which sexual differentiation itself is “lower” than the unified, androgynous nature in which we would have been created if not for God’s foreknowledge of the Fall.)

The historical arguments falls apart at point 3,

1. The ordination of women, in contrast, is a break with traditional practice, but is thoroughly justified by the anthropological and Christological principles upheld by the Fathers and the scholastics, applied to a cultural context in which it is assumed that women embody human nature just as perfectly as men do.

Which is again nothing but an appeal to cultural consensus, repackaged and reformatted, and the crux of your historical argument. Political correctness doth not a necessary and sufficient condition of truth make.

In point 4,

1. In short, the “conservative” position can only be truly traditional if conservatives are willing to argue that females are imperfect males. This assumption is not an incidental detail which can be discarded…

I would not discard that assumption. Being the unrepentant Scholastic-Thomist and sexist that I am, likely would end up arguing that man is more perfectly instantiated on Scriptural grounds, based on primacy of creation if nothing else. Arguing the concept from purely philosophical grounds would be more difficult, nigh to impossible, but Scripture is there for a reason - if we argued religion solely from philosophical grounds, we’d be Deists, not Christians.*

 

[Khalid]

And, under a proper Aristotelian, instead of Kantian-Humean, framework,

Also note the phrase “ontological necessity.” You could argue, as Protestant “complementarians” do, that only men ought to be ordained…

That is an instance of the “is-ought” problem that is irrelevant - nonexistent - in Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy, eradicated by the concept of the final cause of the four causes. In a framework of modern philosophy, the is-ought distinction holds more weight, but, in a framework of the four causes, I can see no validity in this point of this artificial distinction (thus, it seems, contradicting the Angelic Doctor himself, although I am not readily familiar with the passage you allude to).

However, the entire line of enquiry is rendered moot if one is not handling, passing, circumlocuting, dissembling, and dropping the contention that males more perfectly instantiate mankind than females like it was a block of plastique.

 

[Marybeloved]

in Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy, eradicated by the concept of the final cause of the four causes. In a framework of modern philosophy, the is-ought distinction holds more weight, but, i****n a framework of the four causes, I can see no validity in this point of this artificial distinction (thus, it seems, contradicting the Angelic Doctor himself, although I am not readily familiar with the passage you allude to).

Khalid, what are the four causes? I know the final cause…What are the four causes and how are they related to the final cause?

Peace.

 

[Khalid]

The four causes:

Material cause: what a thing is made out of.

Formal cause: the form that is instantiated.

Efficient cause: the immediate cause of making, equivalent to the normal definition of “cause” in cause and effect (more Thomist); also, the principle according to which a thing is made (more Aristotelian).

Final cause: the purpose to which a thing is made; teleology.

For a common example, the heart’s material cause is muscle fiber. Its formal cause, that which is instantiated, is the form of “heart”. The efficient cause is cell division (immediate/moving cause) or the code present in DNA (the principle of making). The final cause is “pumping blood”.

 

[GKC]

Actually I believe not. As far as I know, the default position was not to recognize them, but there had been some debate on the subject. In the 19th century the “Anglo-Catholics” argued passionately that Anglicanism had always been essentially Catholic and simply needed to purify itself of some incidental Protestant corruptions. They wanted Rome and the Orthodox to recognize them as having valid apostolic succession. Pope Leo’s decision was intended to clarify the matter, and it reaffirmed the dominant understanding within the Roman Communion with regard to Anglican Orders.

I would welcome further clarification from the poster “GKC,” who knows a lot more about the details of this than I do.

Edwin

I appreciate your compliment. I have been out of town for a week. If there is still any interest in the subject, I would give it a shot.

Your brief comment is not (strictly speaking), accurate.

GKC

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Respect and charity please.

 

[Miriam1947]

Good morning, Eric. You’re up early.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Good morning, Eric. You’re up early.

The first moderators up have to take out the morning trash (advertising spam).

 

[Miriam1947]

The first moderators up have to take out the morning trash (advertising spam).

 

[Faithdancer]

The four causes:

Material cause: what a thing is made out of.

Formal cause: the form that is instantiated.

Efficient cause: the immediate cause of making, equivalent to the normal definition of “cause” in cause and effect (more Thomist); also, the principle according to which a thing is made (more Aristotelian).

Final cause: the purpose to which a thing is made; teleology.

For a common example, the heart’s material cause is muscle fiber. Its formal cause, that which is instantiated, is the form of “heart”. The efficient cause is cell division (immediate/moving cause) or the code present in DNA (the principle of making). The final cause is “pumping blood”.

What on earth does this have to do with the thread?

 

[Faithdancer]

I appreciate your compliment. I have been out of town for a week. If there is still any interest in the subject, I would give it a shot.

Your brief comment is not (strictly speaking), accurate.

GKC

I would like to read your thoughts. Please proceed!

 

[Contarini]

I would like to read your thoughts. Please proceed!

I would too, as the person guilty of inaccuracy!

 

[GKC]

I would too, as the person guilty of inaccuracy!

Person accused of inaccuracy. Not the same as guilty.

To be guilty of inaccuracy, you would have meant to imply that Anglicans raised the issue, seeking to gain official RC recognition of their orders, which, in time (like, two years later, after Portal trailed his coat in an article published in La Science Catholique), resulted in the issuing of Apostolicae Curae..

Nope. See Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, pp. 34-36. The question of Anglican orders was suggested by the Abbe Portal, against Viscount Halifax’s objections, as a suitable subject to engage the two Churches in technical discussions. The aim was the establishment of what would have been a form of early Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, aimed at eventually approaching a corporate reunion. Of course, the idea of a joint forum for a discussion really never was in the cards.

As Hughes said, Anglicans generally had no doubts on the matter. Nor were they looking for validation from Rome. Since this was all a reaction to the movement begun by Portal and Halifax, it was intended to be a means of starting a joint discussion. IOW, it was hoped to come, and reason together, on a much wider agenda.

GKC

 

[Khalid]

What on earth does this have to do with the thread?

It was a response to another poster’s direct question. I’ve been out of this thread long enough that I don’t remember much beyond the fact that it dealt with the ordination of women, and complementarianism, so I must imagine it had tangential bearing as a foundation of some thesis I set forth as regards the matter.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Person accused of inaccuracy. Not the same as guilty.

To be guilty of inaccuracy, you would have meant to imply that Anglicans raised the issue, seeking to gain official RC recognition of their orders, which, in time (like, two years later, after Portal trailed his coat in an article published in La Science Catholique), resulted in the issuing of Apostolicae Curae..

Nope. See Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, pp. 34-36. The question of Anglican orders was suggested by the Abbe Portal, against Viscount Halifax’s objections, as a suitable subject to engage the two Churches in technical discussions. The aim was the establishment of what would have been a form of early Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, aimed at eventually approaching a corporate reunion. Of course, the idea of a joint forum for a discussion really never was in the cards.

As Hughes said, Anglicans generally had no doubts on the matter. Nor were they looking for validation from Rome. Since this was all a reaction to the movement begun by Portal and Halifax, it was intended to be a means of starting a joint discussion. IOW, it was hoped to come, and reason together, on a much wider agenda.

GKC

Initiative did not come from the CC. But from Angelican Bishops whom entered into dialogue with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, in order to explore possible forms of “reunion”. Which they had arrived at the conclusion they fully shared the faith that is set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. To quote “that this is exactly what they believed”. The CC was then asked to what extent they might be able to preserve their own Tradition, their own inherited form of life with all of the richs it contains.

The Pope promulgated an Apostolic Constitution for this purpose which for the first time provides their own canonical and organizational structure for local churchs. Prior to the Constitution the idea was associated with a return home to the Catholic Church.

Eventually the process resulted in the offer within this framework. It remains to be seen how much fruit it bears. Its a sign of the flexabilty of the Catholic Church. The idea most certainly isn’t to create new uniate churchs, but to offer ways for local church traditions, traditions which have evolved outside of Rome, to be bought into communion with the Pope and the Catholic Church.

The Pope cannot offer an alternative definition of a Church, he is bound by Vatican-II. And yes the word “ecclesial community” is the term employed by Vatican II.

This is recognized in the fact that Protestantism has taken steps which have led it further away from us, rather than closer to us. Womens Ordinations and Homosexual partnerships are just two of many similiar example’s. Their are also ethical positions, other instances of conformism with the modern spirit of the present age, all makes dialogue more difficult. It must also be understood that Protestantism is vast and mutilayered. So when we speak we need to always keep this in mind out of respect for Protestants who adhere to a deeper undertanding and following of faith.

A Church in the proper sense, as understood by Vatican II, exists where the episcopal office, as the sacremental expression of Apostolic Succession, is present. This also implys the Eucharist as a sacrement that is dispensed by the Bishop or Priest.

You see these “ecclesial communities” insist they are different, and we simply agree. They are simply not the same mode in which the great tradition of antiquity are Churchs. They are based on a new and different understanding .

The term is simply an attempt to capture what is unique about the Protestant Christianity and to give it a postive expression. The key point is that Protestantism shifted the accent of Christianity, thus we are trying to completely understand this to acknowledge each other as Christians. Which is also worth stressing that the ecclesial situation differs greatly from one Protestant community to another. In many instances its simply the dynamism of the Word that gather’s people into a Protestant congregation.

Another observation from earlier in this thread is the idea of being “born” into Christianity. Not so, its correct to say you are born into a culture, you are Baptized into Christianity as a Sacrement of the Church. Or in whatever term your particular congregation views this. No-One is born Christian. You may be born of Christian parents.

However depending on who’s writting one chose’s to view as accurate I would suppose their would be a different take on the matter. Here I digress, I follow the Pope whom today is Benedict XVI.

Peace

 

[GKC]

Initiative did not come from the CC. But from Angelican Bishops whom entered into dialogue with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, in order to explore possible forms of “reunion”. Which they had arrived at the conclusion they fully shared the faith that is set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. To quote “that this is exactly what they believed”. The CC was then asked to what extent they might be able to preserve their own Tradition, their own inherited form of life with all of the richs it contains.

The Pope promulgated an Apostolic Constitution for this purpose which for the first time provides their own canonical and organizational structure for local churchs. Prior to the Constitution the idea was associated with a return home to the Catholic Church.

Eventually the process resulted in the offer within this framework. It remains to be seen how much fruit it bears. Its a sign of the flexabilty of the Catholic Church. The idea most certainly isn’t to create new uniate churchs, but to offer ways for local church traditions, traditions which have evolved outside of Rome, to be bought into communion with the Pope and the Catholic Church.

The Pope cannot offer an alternative definition of a Church, he is bound by Vatican-II. And yes the word “ecclesial community” is the term employed by Vatican II.

This is recognized in the fact that Protestantism has taken steps which have led it further away from us, rather than closer to us. Womens Ordinations and Homosexual partnerships are just two of many similiar example’s. Their are also ethical positions, other instances of conformism with the modern spirit of the present age, all makes dialogue more difficult. It must also be understood that Protestantism is vast and mutilayered. So when we speak we need to always keep this in mind out of respect for Protestants who adhere to a deeper undertanding and following of faith.

A Church in the proper sense, as understood by Vatican II, exists where the episcopal office, as the sacremental expression of Apostolic Succession, is present. This also implys the Eucharist as a sacrement that is dispensed by the Bishop or Priest.

You see these “ecclesial communities” insist they are different, and we simply agree. They are simply not the same mode in which the great tradition of antiquity are Churchs. They are based on a new and different understanding .

The term is simply an attempt to capture what is unique about the Protestant Christianity and to give it a postive expression. The key point is that Protestantism shifted the accent of Christianity, thus we are trying to completely understand this to acknowledge each other as Christians. Which is also worth stressing that the ecclesial situation differs greatly from one Protestant community to another. In many instances its simply the dynamism of the Word that gather’s people into a Protestant congregation.

Another observation from earlier in this thread is the idea of being “born” into Christianity. Not so, its correct to say you are born into a culture, you are Baptized into Christianity as a Sacrement of the Church. Or in whatever term your particular congregation views this. No-One is born Christian. You may be born of Christian parents.

However depending on who’s writting one chose’s to view as accurate I would suppose their would be a different take on the matter. Here I digress, I follow the Pope whom today is Benedict XVI.

Peace

An interesting post, but not related to mine ( the quoted one.) Which was about Apostolicae Curea, not Anglicanorum Coetibus..

GKC