Church of England backs women bishops

[ezeekl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
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.

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.

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.

The impression that I received from reading the response from Novocastrian is the old protestant cafeteria style of theology where one gets to pick and choose what one wants to believe. I merely pointed out that this ‘cafeteria theology’ is unscriptural. In the OT God always had one man, whether he be Abraham, Issac, Moses or any of the prophets, to proclaim the the Lord’s intent. In the NT that was Peter and his successors. So the matter is settled in the Catholic Church and if, one day, the COE is reunited with the Catholic Church what do you think will happen to all those woman ‘priests’ and ‘bishops’? Do you think they will be allowed to keep their office? I surely don’t. This is in no way triumphalism. Rather it is standing up for the truth as given in the scriptures. That is what Pope St. John Paul II did. Now isn’t that what one would reasonably expect from a sola scripturist? I think so. Why then, are we not getting it?

 

[Novocastrian]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
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.

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.

The impression that I received from reading the response from Novocastrian is the old protestant cafeteria style of theology where one gets to pick and choose what one wants to believe. I merely pointed out that this ‘cafeteria theology’ is unscriptural. In the OT God always had one man, whether he be Abraham, Issac, Moses or any of the prophets, to proclaim the the Lord’s intent. In the NT that was Peter and his successors. So the matter is settled in the Catholic Church and if, one day, the COE is reunited with the Catholic Church what do you think will happen to all those woman ‘priests’ and ‘bishops’? Do you think they will be allowed to keep their office? I surely don’t. This is in no way triumphalism. Rather it is standing up for the truth as given in the scriptures. That is what Pope St. John Paul II did. Now isn’t that what one would reasonably expect from a sola scripturist? I think so. Why then, are we not getting it?

A bad argument is a bad argument, no matter who offers it. It’s entirely logically possible that Rome is right about women in orders, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the late Pope’s reasoning is sound.

It does matter whether one is convinced or not. At the end of the day, to accept the Roman Church’s position involved being convinced of the truth of its claims to teach authoritatively. This isn’t ‘cafeteria theology’. It’s how human beings form and hold beliefs. Belief has an inescapably subjective dimension that Truth doesn’t have.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

That is not what you said.

You said:

God’s kingdom is not a democracy where people vote on matters. Nowhere in either the Old or New Testaments was this the case.

I presented you how people voted on 2 matters in the New Testament.

The other would be the Church Councils, where the entire Church determines matters of doctrine. To this day still.

 

[ezeekl]

A bad argument is a bad argument, no matter who offers it. It’s entirely logically possible that Rome is right about women in orders, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the late Pope’s reasoning is sound.

It does matter whether one is convinced or not. At the end of the day, to accept the Roman Church’s position involved being convinced of the truth of its claims to teach authoritatively. This isn’t ‘cafeteria theology’. It’s how human beings form and hold beliefs. Belief has an inescapably subjective dimension that Truth doesn’t have.

I disagree. A doctrinal statement by the pope which meets the criteria for infallibility, by its very nature, eliminates any subjectiveness. So what you have then is the truth. It is the truth whether you or anyone else are convinced of it or not. In christianity, belief must conform to truth not vice versa.

 

[ezeekl]

That is not what you said.

You said:

Quote:
God’s kingdom is not a democracy where people vote on matters. Nowhere in either the Old or New Testaments was this the case.

I presented you how people voted on 2 matters in the New Testament.

The other would be the Church Councils, where the entire Church determines matters of doctrine. To this day still.

I left out the important part about doctrine. I thought it was clear that is what we were speaking about. Apparently it was not clear.

As for councils, they require the concurrence of the pope to be valid. But no council has changed any doctrine. Councils have defined doctrine but not changed them. Good example is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. There are others. Most of these (but not all) formal definitions of doctrine come in response to heresy.

 

[James82]

Could be. Or it could mean more moving to continuing Anglican communions.

Jon

Probably an even split. Many Anglicans are probably under the impression of “Rome or bust”. I myself was under this impression at one point.

Rome is a healthy choice, they have not abandoned the Deposit of Faith. However, the worldwide TAC is also legitimate choice.

As far as the CofE, nothing more than a corpse that keeps falling apart.

 

[Contarini]

Probably an even split. Many Anglicans are probably under the impression of “Rome or bust”. I myself was under this impression at one point.

Rome is a healthy choice, they have not abandoned the Deposit of Faith. However, the worldwide TAC is also legitimate choice.

As far as the CofE, nothing more than a corpse that keeps falling apart.

Orthodoxy is a more compelling alternative than the TAC, except for those for whom Anglican identity is vitally important.

And yes, the CofE is a corpse that keeps falling apart. So is every Christian body. So is the Church as a whole. And yet the Holy Spirit keeps bringing it to life again.

The CofE is in a far healthier condition spiritually now, by all accounts, than it was in the early 18th century.

Edwin

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Orthodoxy is a more compelling alternative than the TAC, except for those for whom Anglican identity is vitally important.

And yes, the CofE is a corpse that keeps falling apart. So is every Christian body. So is the Church as a whole. And yet the Holy Spirit keeps bringing it to life again.

The CofE is in a far healthier condition spiritually now, by all accounts, than it was in the early 18th century.

Edwin

Out of curiosity, could you elaborate on the differences now compared to the 18th century? Thanks Edwin

 

[Novocastrian]

And yes, the CofE is a corpse that keeps falling apart. So is every Christian body. So is the Church as a whole. And yet the Holy Spirit keeps bringing it to life again.

Yep. After recent controversies the wheat and tares parable on Sunday seemed appropriate and heartening. When it comes to the failings of churches, Christians can be simultaneously realistic and optimistic…

 

[James82]

Orthodoxy is a more compelling alternative than the TAC, except for those for whom Anglican identity is vitally important.

**And yes, the CofE is a corpse that keeps falling apart. So is every Christian body. So is the Church as a whole. And yet the Holy Spirit keeps bringing it to life again.

The CofE is in a far healthier condition spiritually now, by all accounts, than it was in the early 18th century.**
Edwin

I can’t help but see that you are contradicting yourself? How can a corpse that is falling apart be healthier spiritually than it was in the 18th Century?

As for Orthodoxy, I presume you are referring to the Orthodox Church? It is not more compelling for me, and Anglican identity is not what I’d consider vitally important.

The TAC is not in any way, shape or form part a dying Christianity. Whole parishes are continually falling under her roof as they come out of ‘mainline-anglicanism’.

As for Rome…again, doctrinally she is not, and will never abandon the faith, despite what rogue-minded prelates may or may not do.

What stopped me from switching over was after attending some services and talking with a priest. The services came across as highly pedestrian, bland, and the icing on the cake was the CCCB officially uses the NRSV…nope, nope, and nope.

 

[Contarini]

Out of curiosity, could you elaborate on the differences now compared to the 18th century? Thanks Edwin

In the early 18th century the dominant theological trend was a kind of moralism in which being a Christian was identified with social respectability. There was almost no understanding of forgiveness–when the evangelicals appeared and began ministering to dying criminals, they were condemned as presumptuous for telling these people that if they repented they could be confident of God’s forgiveness. There were bishops who denied the Trinity. The Church was pretty much an arm of the state with the job of enforcing moral order. And at the same time it wasn’t doing a very good job of that–most of the upper classes scoffed at the Church and regarded it as a useful fiction to keep the lower classes in line, and many of the lower classes were unreached by it. As the population grew and new industrial centers formed, the C of E didn’t develop new parishes or other forms of ministry to reach these people. So you had large areas where there was almost no ministry at all. Clergy typically were seen as local gentry and many of them seemed to care more about hunting and social events, or at best a quiet life of scholarship, than about pastoral care. This is of course painting with an extremely broad brush. The picture is never entirely dark and there were people of great piety in the C of E. But the dominant picture, at last from what I’ve read, was pretty bad.

Today, on the other hand, there is a strong evangelical movement within the C of E. The last Archbishop of Canterbury was one of the finest scholars and theologians of our time. The current Archbishop is a pastor and social critic of great intelligence and piety. The social conditions are, again, pretty bad. And there are plenty of problems in the C of E. But there is also a lot of vitality. There’s something just downright nasty about the readiness of many Catholics (and, alas, many evangelicals as well) to declare other Christian churches dead.

Edwin

 

[James82]

In the early 18th century the dominant theological trend was a kind of moralism in which being a Christian was identified with social respectability. There was almost no understanding of forgiveness–when the evangelicals appeared and began ministering to dying criminals, they were condemned as presumptuous for telling these people that if they repented they could be confident of God’s forgiveness. There were bishops who denied the Trinity. The Church was pretty much an arm of the state with the job of enforcing moral order. And at the same time it wasn’t doing a very good job of that–most of the upper classes scoffed at the Church and regarded it as a useful fiction to keep the lower classes in line, and many of the lower classes were unreached by it. As the population grew and new industrial centers formed, the C of E didn’t develop new parishes or other forms of ministry to reach these people. So you had large areas where there was almost no ministry at all. Clergy typically were seen as local gentry and many of them seemed to care more about hunting and social events, or at best a quiet life of scholarship, than about pastoral care. This is of course painting with an extremely broad brush. The picture is never entirely dark and there were people of great piety in the C of E. But the dominant picture, at last from what I’ve read, was pretty bad.

Today, on the other hand, there is a strong evangelical movement within the C of E. The last Archbishop of Canterbury was one of the finest scholars and theologians of our time. The current Archbishop is a pastor and social critic of great intelligence and piety. The social conditions are, again, pretty bad. And there are plenty of problems in the C of E. But there is also a lot of vitality. There’s something just downright nasty about the readiness of many Catholics (and, alas, many evangelicals as well) to declare other Christian churches dead.
Edwin

I would have to agree.

 

[Contarini]

I can’t help but see that you are contradicting yourself? How can a corpse that is falling apart be healthier spiritually than it was in the 18th Century?

Because then it was much deader and was falling apart even faster

As for Orthodoxy, I presume you are referring to the Orthodox Church? It is not more compelling for me

Why not?

The TAC is not in any way, shape or form part a dying Christianity. Whole parishes are continually falling under her roof as they come out of ‘mainline-anglicanism’.

I’m happy for you in that case, although I don’t think much of your joy in gaining adherence at the expense of others. My own experience is that all the conservative Anglican splitoff groups are consumed by continual schism and infighting. But I’m happy if that is ceasing to be the case.

As for Rome…again, doctrinally she is not, and will never abandon the faith, despite what rogue-minded prelates may or may not do.

I agree–also I share your difficulties with Roman liturgy.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

My own experience is that all the conservative Anglican splitoff groups are consumed by continual schism and infighting. But I’m happy if that is ceasing to be the case.

Edwin

Some folk are working on it.

Maybe progress, maybe not.

GKC

 

[Seraphim73]

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.

You don’t need a supposedly infallible statement from a pope concluding this that you need the pope to tell you the sky is blue.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

In the early 18th century the dominant theological trend was a kind of moralism in which being a Christian was identified with social respectability. There was almost no understanding of forgiveness–when the evangelicals appeared and began ministering to dying criminals, they were condemned as presumptuous for telling these people that if they repented they could be confident of God’s forgiveness. There were bishops who denied the Trinity. The Church was pretty much an arm of the state with the job of enforcing moral order. And at the same time it wasn’t doing a very good job of that–most of the upper classes scoffed at the Church and regarded it as a useful fiction to keep the lower classes in line, and many of the lower classes were unreached by it. As the population grew and new industrial centers formed, the C of E didn’t develop new parishes or other forms of ministry to reach these people. So you had large areas where there was almost no ministry at all. Clergy typically were seen as local gentry and many of them seemed to care more about hunting and social events, or at best a quiet life of scholarship, than about pastoral care. This is of course painting with an extremely broad brush. The picture is never entirely dark and there were people of great piety in the C of E. But the dominant picture, at last from what I’ve read, was pretty bad.

Today, on the other hand, there is a strong evangelical movement within the C of E. The last Archbishop of Canterbury was one of the finest scholars and theologians of our time. The current Archbishop is a pastor and social critic of great intelligence and piety. The social conditions are, again, pretty bad. And there are plenty of problems in the C of E. But there is also a lot of vitality. There’s something just downright nasty about the readiness of many Catholics (and, alas, many evangelicals as well) to declare other Christian churches dead.

Edwin

Thanks Edwin

I appreciate the Anglicans/ Episcopalians on CAF; it is right that we are in full communion.

 

[GKC]

Thanks Edwin

I appreciate the Anglicans/ Episcopalians on CAF; it is right that we are in full communion.

For some of y’all.

GKC

 

[recentrevert]

It seems that God is mocking the Anglican religion and showing it for what it is. The more absurd the C. of E. becomes the more sincere Anglicans with be motivated to search for the truth.

 

[Picky_Picky]

It seems that God is mocking the Anglican religion and showing it for what it is. The more absurd the C. of E. becomes the more sincere Anglicans with be motivated to search for the truth.

That’s an interesting point of view. Do you think it likely that God would do that?

 

[ezeekl]

You don’t need a supposedly infallible statement from a pope concluding this that you need the pope to tell you the sky is blue.

I find your post to be offensive. I forgive you but you may wish to proceed further with civility in mind.

Thank you.