N
Novocastrian
Guest
For clarity’s sake, I should point out that the Church of England (obviously) disagrees with this judgement.
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
Slightly more complicated. Apostolicae curae links the concept of an invalid sacramental form, in the Edwardine ordinal, with a supposed invalid sacramental intent, demonstrated in the use of that form.
That’s the simple explanation. Involves more technical and historical details, in detail.
GKC
E
ezeekl
Guest
Probably would behead a bunch of women bishops. After all he did the same to a couple of wives. Come to think of it, he did behead some male bishops. So, there you go!
E
ezeekl
Guest
Pope Saint John Paul II has stated that the church has no authority to ordain women. According to then Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, that statement meets all the requirements for an infalible statement of doctrine. So in the Catholic Church the matter is settled, no women priests.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I’m aware, though I’ve posted elsewhere why I’m not convinced that John Paul II was correct in his reasoning in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
G
GKC
Guest
Even so, there are echoes of that CoE action:
catholic-ew.org.uk/Home/News/Women-Bishops
mospat.ru/en/2014/07/16/news105568/
GKC, who ordered a book yesterday.
E
ezeekl
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
Pope Saint John Paul II has stated that the church has no authority to ordain women. According to then Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, that statement meets all the requirements for an infalible statement of doctrine. So in the Catholic Church the matter is settled, no women priests.
Originally Posted by ezeekl
Pope Saint John Paul II has stated that the church has no authority to ordain women. According to then Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, that statement meets all the requirements for an infalible statement of doctrine. So in the Catholic Church the matter is settled, no women priests.
It really doesn’t matter if you are convinced or not. The matter is settled as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. God’s kingdom is not a democracy where people vote on matters. Nowhere in either the Old or New Testaments was this the case. God always had one and only one human to proclaim, “Thus sayeth the Lord…” The only time that couldbe described as the people voting was when the Israelites made the golden calf. God was not pleased with that.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
You might display a little more charity. No one has denied that the matter of women priests is settled as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. That’s that. Obviously it is not settled quite that way elsewhere. If the opinions of Elsewhere are of no interest, there is no point in this forum. Whether they are or not, triumphalism is not necessarily the best mode for apologetics.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
These spellings do not indicate the same difference as “catholic” and “Catholic” do today, due to the lack of regularised spelling rules for English at the time. In the C16th-18th generally (and, for some writers, even well into the C19th), capitalisation indicated only the importance of the word to the writer.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Isn’t that what we have theology for: to tell God what God thinks?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Uhhmmm…
Acts 1:23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab′bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi′as. 24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi′as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
Acts 6:2 And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch′orus, and Nica′nor, and Timon, and Par′menas, and Nicola′us, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
And here I was just glad that the CofE is managing to catch up with much of the rest of the Anglican Communion, who have been doing this for decades.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
We do call them “priests”, yes, as we have done for well over a thousand years. We use “pastor” in its Latin sense, as “shepherd”, i.e. as the description of an activity rather than as a title.
If some people do change churches over this, it is likely to happen in both directions (Angl->Cath and Cath->Angl), and those moving from the Anglican church, at least, are more likely to be from the laity than the clergy. Our clergy tend to be moderates, which is not surprising when you consider that they are the ones who stand in the middle of the sprawling mass of differences which is Anglicanism, valiantly trying to keep the extremes together and talking.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
The people who said “thus saith the Lord” were the prophets. There were in fact several true prophets alive on a number of occasions–probably there were always quite a few, but I’m just going by the ones clearly identified in the Bible. For instance, Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, and Micah all lived at approximately the same time, and they all said “thus saith the Lord.”
More to the point, the prophets were frequently at odds with the religious authorities. So this isn’t really a good example for your purpose.
Edwin
N
Novocastrian
Guest
I’m not suggesting that we vote on truth.
I am, however, suggesting that a flawed argument is hard to accept as divine truth.
Also c.f. Edwin’s response.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Of course ‘women who wants to be ordained as priest wants to be men’ is a crude way of putting it, but it is not that far from the truth. It may not be that these women desire to be men, but by desiring the priesthood, they are desiring something which only a man can have. To use a very fitting image, it is like a woman desiring to be a father. She may not desire to be a man, but she is desiring to be what only a man can be.
I am myself a Lutheran priest, in the Church of Norway, and I reject women priests and bishops. In a couple of posts (one on denominations which allow women priest/pastors and one on Lutherans in general), I answered some questions regarding Lutheran opposition towards female ordination. A very typical question was asked by a Lutheran (who goes by the name EvangelCatholic, see here, here, and here). He asked where in the confessions (which Lutherans adhere to, in particular Confessio Augustana) we could find a statement that said only men could be ordained as priests. To understand this question it must be said that we Lutherans are almost fanatically concerned of the question of the confession. We ask constantly if something can be found in the confessions, and sometimes they seem to stand above Scripture (even though these confessions themselves, in particular Confessio Augustana, points to Scripture as the ultimate basis of the faith). In answer to EvangelCatholic’s question, , article 14Confessio Augustana (here in the translation from bookofconcord.org): “Of Ecclesiastical Order [the Lutherans] teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.” There is just one problem with this, and that is the fact that there is no pronoun in neither the Latin nor the German original.
But I pointed out that this represented, however, a fair interpretation of the article. I first made the point that Confessio Augustana refers, in its preface (to Emperor Charles V) to Scripture as the norm. And than I made the point that one can argue against women priests on the basis of Scripture. But I did not present such an argument. I will not do that here either, I will just post these verses from 1. Timothy (3:1-2), in my own translation: “If someone desires an office of overseeing/bishopric, he desires a good work. Thus it is necessary for the overseer to be blameless, husband of one wife, temperate, wise, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…”
A woman cannot be husband of one wife any more than a square can be circular. If a woman desires to be a priest, then, she may not directly desire to be a man, but she is desiring to be what only a man can be.
K
KjetilK
Guest
This depends on what is meant by ‘Jesus telling us.’ It is quite clear that Paul argued against women as priests and bishops, as overseers (as we see in my last reply to you). But what constitutes ‘Jesus telling us’? A more technical way of putting it, would be ‘Jesus instituted.’ Doesn’t Paul, in his writings and as an apostles, represent Christ? As far as we know, Christ didn’t write a single thing himself, apart from some scribbles in the sand. From a methodical standpoint, what makes Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John better or more accurate representatives of Christ than Paul? His writings predate theirs by almost a generation. Why assume that ‘Jesus instituted’ involves only what is recorded in the Gospels, and not also what is prescribed in the Epistles?
E
ezeekl
Guest
You presented two examples of voting but what is missing it the doctrinal element. Voting by the COE to have female bishops is a change in doctrine (as was the vote to ordain women to the COE ministry). Both of these votes changed doctrine in the COE. In the Catholic Church it is formally defined doctrine that the church has no authority to ordain women. Notice that in the OT example I gave there is a change in doctrine from worshopping the Lord to worshipping a golden calf. Changes in doctrine whether they be voted on or not, are not pleasing to the Lord.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Thanks for your time, Father. I agree that 1 Timothy 3.2 is a key verse, and I will spend some more time thinking about it. My initial reactions are divided; ἀνδρα is an exclusively male term, in your favour. On the other hand, though, the literal sense of the passage seems to be an argument for appointing morally blameless ministers; the focus is on behaviour rather than sex. I suppose that’s the way one in favour of the ordination of women must interpret it.
I ask your blessing and prayers, Father,
N.
- Status