Criticisms of Pope Francis reassertion of Catholic dogma on female ordination

[JonNC]

wonder how all these reflections jibe with Anglican and other denoms that have women clergy?

Note that many Continuing Anglicans do not ordain women. Note also that not all Lutheran synods ordain women

Jon

 

[shockerfan]

In what ways?

Anglicans changed consistent Protestant theology in 1930 at the Lambeth conference when they OK’d contraception.

Here is what Luther had to say about contraception:
“The exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches…is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery”

Calvin:
“The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing…For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring”

We also have various Protestant denominations OK’ing and blessing so-called Same Sex Marriage.

 

[Padres1969]

Anglicans changed consistent Protestant theology in 1930 at the Lambeth conference when they OK’d contraception.

Here is what Luther had to say about contraception:
“The exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches…is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery”

Calvin:
“The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing…For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring”

We also have various Protestant denominations OK’ing and blessing so-called Same Sex Marriage.

Well for one, Anglicans aren’t Lutheran or Calvinist… Heck they’re arguably not even Protestant.

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

Well for one, Anglicans aren’t Lutheran or Calvinist… Heck they’re arguably not even Protestant.

Anglicans are the very definition of Protestant; just look at of the theological pluralism in the Anglican Communion.

 

[JonNC]

Anglicans are the very definition of Protestant; just look at of the theological pluralism in the Anglican Communion.

The very definition of Protestant is those who participated in the formal protest at the second Diet of Speyer in 1529. Anglicanism, obviously, was not involved.

Jon

 

[shockerfan]

Well for one, Anglicans aren’t Lutheran or Calvinist… Heck they’re arguably not even Protestant.

My main point stands: Their views change with the prevailing social winds of the times.

My second point still stands: All Christian denominations to my knowledge accepted the idea that contraception was sinful UNTIL the 1930 Lambeth conference. Did God change or did man?

 

[pnewton]

How as Catholics should we respond to these criticism? How would you respond to each of these criticisms?

Read this;

Pope John Paul II:
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

Then simply point out that Pope Francis did nothing but point out that John Paul II has already defined this, infallibly, once and for all. If a Catholic feels scandalized by what Pope Francis said, their understanding of the faith is malformed. This can only be addressed by returning to the foundations of the faith.

 

[Padres1969]

My main point stands: Their views change with the prevailing social winds of the times.

My second point still stands: All Christian denominations to my knowledge accepted the idea that contraception was sinful UNTIL the 1930 Lambeth conference. Did God change or did man?

Man’s as always flawed understanding of God changed.

 

[goout]

Man’s as always flawed understanding of God changed.

God reveals himself. Christ guarantees the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
God’s revelation is not conditioned by our flaws, our understanding is conditioned by our flaws. And so our understanding develops with our capacity to understand.

Development is not the same thing as rupture. Lambeth is a rupture from some pretty basic revealed Truth.

 

[Padres1969]

God reveals himself. Christ guarantees the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
God’s revelation is not conditioned by our flaws, our understanding is conditioned by our flaws. And so our understanding develops with our capacity to understand.

Development is not the same thing as rupture. Lambeth is a rupture from some pretty basic revealed Truth.

And on that we disagree

 

[goout]

Padres1969:
And on that we disagree

Where do we disagree?

Stop me where we disagree:
Men and women are made male and female.
Sexuality has a purpose ordered to the good of human life. It is good that human beings are alive. Sex between a man and woman is the unique way human life happens.
Do we agree so far?

Because that is so good, the sexual order and equipment that uniquely and solely brings that good about deserves respect. You wouldn’t use a hammer to trim your nails would you?

Separating the sexual faculty from this good interrupts it’s proper order and reduces it to utilitarian purposes.
(I suspect this is where you will jump off but will not have a good reason why)

Contraception precisely separates sexuality from this orderedness to the good.

 

[Padres1969]

Where do we disagree?

Stop me where we disagree:
Men and women are made male and female.
Sexuality has a purpose ordered to the good of human life. It is good that human beings are alive. Sex between a man and woman is the unique way human life happens.
Do we agree so far?

Because that is so good, the sexual order and equipment that uniquely and solely brings that good about deserves respect. You wouldn’t use a hammer to trim your nails would you?

**Separating the sexual faculty from this good interrupts it’s proper order and reduces it to utilitarian purposes. **
(I suspect this is where you will jump off but will not have a good reason why)

Contraception precisely separates sexuality from this orderedness to the good.

What you call it’s utilitarian purpose, I call it’s proper order. That’s where we differ I suspect.

 

[goout]

What you call it’s utilitarian purpose, I call it’s proper order. That’s where we differ I suspect.

You agree that sexual complementarity is ordered to the good of human existence.
Given that, if it is used some other way, how is that not “using” (utilitarian) sexuality apart from the admitted order?

 

[Padres1969]

You agree that sexual complementarity is ordered to the good of human existence.
Given that, if it is used some other way, how is that not “using” (utilitarian) sexuality apart from the admitted order?

I agree that a man and woman are required to procreate the species. Beyond that, I’d disagree that any further complementarity is required for the good of human existence. Men and women are all human beings capable of doing anything and everything the other sex is capable of doing beyond that procreative role.

 

[Rau]

I agree that a man and woman are required to procreate the species. Beyond that, I’d disagree that any further complementarity is required for the good of human existence.

So the good acts of some men and women provide the “permission” for the bad acts of others - such as same sex sexual activity?

 

[Padres1969]

So the good acts of some men and women provide the “permission” for the bad acts of others - such as same sex sexual activity?

I’d have to believe same sex activity is a bad act first of all to believe that. Which I don’t. But even absent that not sure how you made that connection.

 

[Rau]

I’d have to believe same sex activity is a bad act first of all to believe that. Which I don’t.

Oh. How do you judge same sex sexual acts to be good then?

 

[Padres1969]

Oh. How do you judge same sex sexual acts to be good then?

Based on if those engaging in them are in committed relationships generally speaking. Of course I believe those same sex couples can marry and be in such a relationship. If you don’t believe the latter can exist I can see how the former might prove problematic.

 

[Rau]

Based on if those engaging in them are in committed relationships generally speaking. Of course I believe those same sex couples can marry and be in such a relationship. If you don’t believe the latter can exist I can see how the former might prove problematic.

Do you have a foundation for any of this? In Scripture? In reason? The exchange of semen between two men is good because…?

 

[shockerfan]

Man’s as always flawed understanding of God changed.

Man’s understanding of God is always flawed? Certainly if there are 30,000+ Christian denominations in the world, then its fair to think there are a large number of flawed understandings. However, words directly from the lips of our Lord tell us we can have an “un-flawed” view of God and His teachings via His Church

Luke 10:16

“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”


John 16:13-15

But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.



John 14:16

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.




1 Tim 3:15

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
