Do Episcopalians believe that monotheistic religions have a plan of salvation?

[gurneyhalleck1]

continued…

As for the Pauline keeping women in their place, that isn’t an argument I’ve made. I know full well that Paul’s admonition to keep women silent has no place in the WO debate. I never felt it did. That’s more an issue of Paul’s personal approach to eccelsiastical discipline. It’s not one I share but I can understand his contemporary feeling about it. And it is not easy to ignore how many lesbian female clergy there are in the Episcopal Church who are liberal activists, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, and very heretical. Many of the outlandish far left nonesense from the Episcopal Church has come from female clergy. Katharine Jefforts-Schiori’s reign has been marred by excessive liberal theology and persecutions of anyone not conforming to her vision. Women priests have been some of the worst in the Episcopal Church. That doesn’t mean there aren’t bad priests in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches, just an observation. There aren’t many female clergy in Anglican circles who are faithful to traditional morality and orthodoxy. nine times out of ten a women’s ordination blog, website, or group is also pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and chaotic in theology so it shows the slippery slope as well as the lack of common sense.

If your mind is truly open to this issue, you’ll read articles like “Ordination is Not a Right” catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105fea4.asp, “Does the Catholic Church Hate Women” catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603fea4.asp and other Catholic perspectives available from Catholic Answers and other good, solid Catholic and conservative Anglican publications. You said when you went into your study that you thought that there were no women apostles. You were right. Women deaconesses yes, apostles no. The word might be used in some writings but never in the true context of apostle in a sacramental way. As I said before, have you read the Anglican AMIA report on women’s ordination. As a person considering Anglicanism, if you are intelligent and open-minded, which I think you are, you’ll read it to get both sides. And keep in mind, AMIA ordained women for a long time until this report was prayerfully and methodically put together by a learned group of Anglicans. theamia.org/am_cms_media/amiawomensordinationstudyaug03.pdf

Women’s ordination has been a monkey wrench in the gears of reconciliation and ecumenical talks between Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox communions. Bear that in mind. Is it worth it?

As you stated, this argument can only go so far. Thanks for a spirited debate but I challenge and recommend you to read the links I’ve given. May God bless you.

This has nothing to do with “cherry picking” Scripture. The debate over female Apostles is centuries old. I gave you an example with the quote from Chrysostom’s Homily 31 on Romans quoted from a Catholic website. Hardly a Sola Scriptura argument.

The Eastern Orthodox celebrate the Feast of Andronicus and Junia, acknowledging both as Apostles—and other female Apostles, as well. Today, the EO are celebrating the Feast of Aquila and Priscilla. So, you may disagree–and there are some good historical arguments to support your position; but “Sola Scriptura” is not one of them. There is too much history involved in the issue.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Response to gurneyhalleck1–Part 1 of 3

"[W]
hen one is required to preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature" (The Priesthood 2:2 [A.D. 387]).

And there were indeed deaconesses, not truly ordained but a reality of the early church due to the delicate nature of being around women, avoiding scandal in baptismal situations, etc.
**“Appoint, [O Bishop], a deaconess, faithful and holy, for the ministering of women. For sometimes it is not possible to send a deacon into certain houses of women, because of unbelievers. Send a deaconess, because of the thoughts of the petty. A deaconess is of use to us also in many other situations. First of all, in the baptizing of women, a deacon will touch only their forehead with the holy oil, and afterwards the female deacon herself anoints them” Apostolic Constitutions (ibid., 3:16). **

And this citation is also compelling showing that women had no true apostolic, sacramental powers given, just pastoral ones:
"A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women" Apostolic Constitutions (ibid., 8:28).

Augustine is noted for being very vocal against WO.

**"[The Quintillians are heretics who] give women predominance so that these, too, can be honored with the priesthood among them. They say, namely, that Christ revealed himself . . . to Quintilla and Priscilla [two Montanist prophetesses] in the form of a woman" St. Augustine (Heresies 1:17 [A.D. 428]). **

And then of course there are the councils and proclamations of Mother Church:
"[T]he so-called ‘presbyteresses’ or ‘presidentesses’ are not to be ordained in the Church" Council of Laodicea (Canon 11 [A.D. 360]).

**“Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity” Council of Nicaea I
(Canon 19 [A.D. 325]). **

Well, gurneyhalleck1, it seems you have abandoned our discussion regarding whether or not there were female Apostles, and launched an argument against the ordination of women. I guess when all else fails, change the subject.

As I said in several other posts, the issue of the ordination of women is not that important to me. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue. Contarini/Edwin has given an excellent argument for the ordination of woman; but you did not continue your discussion with him on the issue. If you want to debate this issue, I would suggest resuming your discussion with Edwin.

I do have to ask, since you used a quote from Chrysostom in your argument against female ordination, does that mean you accept his words regarding Junia being an Apostle? Just curious.

What I challenged, was your use of the claim that there were no female Apostles–to justify the denial of female ordination–as stated in the following post:

. . . . .from the sciptures through the many centuries, we see no justification or theologians supporting this position other than heretics in the gnostic sects. Why didn’t christ ordain a female apostle? Any theories? Why were there none in the early church and none throughout history until the twentieth century in the anglican world? . . . .

I wanted to laugh out loud when you said my feeling that Mary Magdalene and the Blessed Virgin Mary being worthy of apostleship had women been eligible for such an office. Seriously, you’re right. She was on the Mother of God Incarnate. Only shared the same blood as Christ, literally. She was at His birth, at his side at Cana, by his side at His Passion, at the foot of the Cross, at Pentecost, known to be “full of grace” and blessed among women in a way no human being has ever been blessed. She was revered in the early church and is considered the queen of heaven and of all the saints. . . . .

You misquoted me. My statement was:

Believing if there were female Apostles, it should have been the Blessed Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene is very presumptuous. This is not an valid argument against female Apostles.

I am not, in any way, denying the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary or Mary Magdalene. My point is that it is very presumptuous to assume that, if there were female Apostles, these two women would have to be Apostles.

I do not believe we can assume to know the thoughts of God on the issue. I would suggest that it is entirely possible that their elevated status may be the reason they were not subjected to further trials as Apostles. I am only suggesting there could be any number of reasons for their not being Apostles. IOW, I would not presume to know the thoughts or motives of God regarding these two women in relation to Apostleship.

See next Post for Part 2 of 3

 

[Anna_Scott]

Response to gurneyhalleck1–Part 2 of 3

continued…

As for the Pauline keeping women in their place, that isn’t an argument I’ve made. I know full well that Paul’s admonition to keep women silent has no place in the WO debate. I never felt it did. That’s more an issue of Paul’s personal approach to eccelsiastical discipline. It’s not one I share but I can understand his contemporary feeling about it.

The point is that men seemed to feel Holy Scripture needed some help in texts regarding the place/role of women. Scripture was actually altered, not only in changing the female name of Junia to the male name Junias; but also by interpolations, as I noted in a previous post (emphasis is mine):

there is question regarding whether or not 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 was contained in the autographs, or was a later “interpolation,” used to keep women in subordinate roles.

Some bible translations make reference to the “interpolation” possibility, such as the [new american bible, from catholic bibles online, link: Catholic Faith Education: Catholic Bibles Online]

1 Corinthians Chapter 14 (NAB):
33 since he is not the god of disorder but of peace. As in all the churches of the holy ones, 10

34 women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.

35 but if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.

36 did the word of god go forth from you? Or has it come to you alone?

37 if anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he should recognize that what i am writing to you is a commandment of the lord.

10 [33b-36] verse 33b may belong with what precedes, so that the new paragraph would begin only with 1 cor 14:34. 1 cor 14:34-35 change the subject. These two verses have the theme of submission in common with 1 cor 14:11 despite differences in vocabulary, and a concern with what is or is not becoming; but it is difficult to harmonize the injunction to silence here with 1 cor 11 which appears to take it for granted that women do pray and prophesy aloud in the assembly (cf 1 cor 11:5, 13). Hence the verses are often considered an interpolation, reflecting the discipline of later churches; such an interpolation would have to have antedated our manuscripts, all of which contain them, though some transpose them to the very end of the chapter.

And it is not easy to ignore how many lesbian female clergy there are in the Episcopal Church who are liberal activists, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, and very heretical. Many of the outlandish far left nonesense from the Episcopal Church has come from female clergy. Katharine Jefforts-Schiori’s reign has been marred by excessive liberal theology and persecutions of anyone not conforming to her vision. Women priests have been some of the worst in the Episcopal Church. That doesn’t mean there aren’t bad priests in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches, just an observation. There aren’t many female clergy in Anglican circles who are faithful to traditional morality and orthodoxy. nine times out of ten a women’s ordination blog, website, or group is also pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and chaotic in theology so it shows the slippery slope as well as the lack of common sense.

Your opinion and ridicule of the Episcopal Church, vehemently expressed on multiple Threads, is entirely irrelavant to the issue of whether or not there were female Apostles.

See next Post for Part 3 of 3

 

[Anna_Scott]

Response to gurneyhalleck1–Part 3 of 3

If your mind is truly open to this issue, you’ll read articles like “Ordination is Not a Right” catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105fea4.asp, “Does the Catholic Church Hate Women” catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603fea4.asp and other Catholic perspectives available from Catholic Answers and other good, solid Catholic and conservative Anglican publications.

Irrelavant to the discussion of whether or not there were female Apostles.

You said when you went into your study that you thought that there were no women apostles. You were right. Women deaconesses yes, apostles no. The word might be used in some writings but never in the true context of apostle in a sacramental way.

Again, historically, the claim of no female Apostles is disputed, and continues to be disputed by many, today, including the Eastern Orthodox Church.

There was, also, Tabitha, a Disciple:

Acts 9 (NAB): 36 now in joppa there was a disciple named tabitha (which translated means dorcas). 10 she was completely occupied with good deeds and almsgiving.

10 [36] tabitha (dorcas), respectively the aramaic and greek words for “gazelle,” exemplifies the right attitude toward material possessions expressed by jesus in the lucan gospel (luke 6:30; 11:41; 12:33; 18:22; 19:8).

As I said before, have you read the Anglican AMIA report on women’s ordination. As a person considering Anglicanism, if you are intelligent and open-minded, which I think you are, you’ll read it to get both sides. And keep in mind, AMIA ordained women for a long time until this report was prayerfully and methodically put together by a learned group of Anglicans. theamia.org/am_cms_media/amiawomensordinationstudyaug03.pdf

Irrelavant to the issue of whether or not there were female Apostles.

Women’s ordination has been a monkey wrench in the gears of reconciliation and ecumenical talks between Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox communions. Bear that in mind. Is it worth it?

Irrelavant to the issue of whether or not there were female Apostles.

As you stated, this argument can only go so far. Thanks for a spirited debate but I challenge and recommend you to read the links I’ve given. May God bless you.

You gave resources for me to consider; and I welcome them–I am investigating the Episcopal/Anglican Church.

I, also, leave you with a resource to consider regarding the issue of female Apostles (not trying to open a discussion about female Priests & I know this website is going to upset you–try to focus on the female Apostle issue): romancatholicwomenpriests.org/RCWP_Resource.pdf

Quotes from this link (please let me know, if you find any misquotes here-emphasis is mine):

Pope Hippolytus, who lived from 170 to 236 AD, addressed the role of women
in early Christianity in which Jesus made a resurrection appearance to certain women such as Mary Magdalene, and “sends them out on the apostolic mission as the first gospel messengers.” (Brock, pp. 43-49): "Lest the female apostles doubt the angels, Christ himself came to them so that the women would be apostles of Christ and by their obedience rectify the sin of the ancient Eve . . . Christ showed himself to the (male) apostles and said to them: . . …’It is I who appeared to the women and I who wanted to send them to you as apostles.’ ”

Gregory of Antioch (d. 593) (Brock, 15), in Oratio in Mulieres Unguentiferas XI, PG 88, 1863-64: "Portrays Jesus as appearing to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary at the tomb and saying to them: ‘Be the first teachers to the teachers. So that Peter who denied me learns that I can also choose women as apostles.’ "

I would like you to consider the fact that the issue of female Apostles is a debate that has gone on for centuries and continues today. Scholars/Theologians still debate the meaning of Romans 16:

**Romans 16 (NAB): **7 greet andronicus and junia, 5my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are prominent among the apostles and they were in christ before me.

**5 **[7] the name junia is a woman’s name. One ancient greek manuscript and a number of ancient versions read the name “julia.” most editors have interpreted it as a man’s name, junias.

I would also ask that you not underestimate the significance of Galations 3:27-29.

At least we both agree that our discussion about female Apostles has run its course. I appreciate your comments and contributions to the topic.

May God’s peace be with you,
Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m sad to see the flurry of “irrelevents” you pasted to each great article I recommended, Anna.
Actually all of the articles and points I made were relevent and I’m disappointed that you would debate them on their merit. Anyone can just type irrelevent or say nonsense and move on. You didn’t read the articles or debate the points at all. Nobody, including me, ever said there weren’t women disciples. That is well-documented in Scripture. If you’re looking to prove that women played a part in the Church, I’ll agree with you. If you’re looking to make the case that women are an important part of the Church and always will be, no argument here. I’ll even agree to the idea that it’s usually women in the home who are more religious and keep the faith vibrant, alive, and relevent for the family. I won’t debate that there were women disciples either. That’s a historical fact. But were Tabitha, Phoebe, and company ORDAINED APOSTOLIC CLERGY who consecrated the Eucharist, forgave sins in the name of Jesus Christ, led the liturgy, and held administrative power in a parish or diocese? Absolutely not.
And don’t worry, I never underestimate or devalue any part of scripture, especially Pauline statements! I highly value them and never underestimate anything here. But thanks for the admonition and the debate here itself. Let’s go ahead and look at Galatians chapter 3 in its totality, not just isolated verses. Holistically, let’s look at it. This third chapter has Paul concentrating on the concern that the Galatians might be deserting their new-found faith in Christ by going in reverse to the futility of works-based Mosaic Law petty Judaizing. The context is salvation and looking forward, not backward, embracing the new gospel of Christ crucified and grace, salvation through faith and not through the Torah and the many many laws and rigors of Leviticus, etc. We are told that righteousness is a gift of grace by God and that the Law is a curse for us. We’re all children of Abraham, not just the Jews, by the mode of faith. Then we’re told this righteousness is for Gentiles. The law did not nullify God’s promise, we’re all children of God, and all can be saved now. And it is in this context that …“neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free person, mot male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” is properly addressed. It’s about salvation, pure and simple. Sex, race, age, social class, wealth, none of this matters if we’re to be saved. The context is NOT clerical, not about ordination, not about administration or sacramental powers. It has absolutely not one thing to do with any of this pro-women’s ordination “debate.” Galatians is about slavery to the law, freedom to be saved through the free gift of grace.

Since I see you quote Scripture in this debate, I will make a few observations, respectfully. 1 Timothy chapter 3 actually *does *discuss clergy and ordination, qualifications for being a minister in the Lord’s Church. Notice what it says and *does not *say.
"Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard…**He **must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not known how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God? He should not be a recent convert, so that he may not become conceited…He must also have a good reputation among outsiders…Similarly deacons must be difnified, not deceitful, not addicted to drink…Women similarly, should be dignified, not slanderers, but temperate and faith in everything. We see only males as bishops, women as deacons only. And deacons could not consecrate the Eucharist or celebrate sacraments. They were mostly pastoral and were servants of the Church who took the Host to shut-ins and the infirm. Female deacons assisted with women converts mostly because of decency. We see nothing about female bishops whatsoever, only deaconesses.

Moving on to Titus 1:5-6 we see:
“For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and **appoint presbyters **in every town as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children…” So prebyters are also only mentioned in a male context. It’s again notable what is and is not there…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Also, let’s think about the Old Testament. The Levite priests were all male, no female priestesses, correct? God is very consistent. Why all-male priesthood in Israel, all-male priesthood in the NT and the early Church and yet somehow there were these mysterious female apostles who were clergy?
God works in mysterious ways, as the old cliche goes. His ways are not our ways. It is hard to imagine in our secularized culture of the new millenium that women cannot have every single job a man can have. It seems chauvenstic or unfair or somehow deliberately sexist. And to consider homosexuality a sin is so politically incorrect and unacceptable in our secular world that it’s akin to burning a cross in someone’s backyard to find the gay lifestyle immoral. The idea of not being able to divorce and remarry at will is outrageous by secular standards…“irreconcilable differences.” I could go on. Jesus says, “I am not of the world” and he tells us the world hated him before it hated you and I. We are to shun the fanciful free-spirit musings of secular society and embrace Christ Jesus and the agenda He has set for us and hold true to the Early Church and the historic deposit of faith. Oprahism is not Christianity. We can go scrape up Anglicans like Spong or Catholics like Hans Kung to justify off-the-wall arguments that have no historicity but rather embrace innovation. I choose to stay true to the faith. It’s not biggoted, sexist, or hateful to women, but rather lays out a different path for wome in the clerical setting. Some of the Church’s best saints are women. Pretty tough to beat the Blessed Virgin Mary. I named my daughter Veronica, after St. Veronica, my personal favorite saint–the only one willing to wipe the bloodied brow of Our Lord. I love these women. I love the women of Jerusalem who wept for Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Martha and Mary who loved Jesus so much, and the many other female martyrs. Women are not inferior to men, just set apart for different duties as per God’s wishes.

Response to gurneyhalleck1–Part 3 of 3

Irrelavant to the discussion of whether or not there were female Apostles.

Again, historically, the claim of no female Apostles is disputed, and continues to be disputed by many, today, including the Eastern Orthodox Church.

There was, also, Tabitha, a Disciple:

Irrelavant to the issue of whether or not there were female Apostles.

Irrelavant to the issue of whether or not there were female Apostles.

You gave resources for me to consider; and I welcome them–I am investigating the Episcopal/Anglican Church.

I, also, leave you with a resource to consider regarding the issue of female Apostles (not trying to open a discussion about female Priests & I know this website is going to upset you–try to focus on the female Apostle issue): romancatholicwomenpriests.org/RCWP_Resource.pdf

Quotes from this link (please let me know, if you find any misquotes here-emphasis is mine):

I would like you to consider the fact that the issue of female Apostles is a debate that has gone on for centuries and continues today. Scholars/Theologians still debate the meaning of Romans 16:

I would also ask that you not underestimate the significance of Galations 3:27-29.

At least we both agree that our discussion about female Apostles has run its course. I appreciate your comments and contributions to the topic.

May God’s peace be with you,
Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

May God’s peace be with you as well. I wish you well on your journey. I truly hope you’ll read the Anglican AMIA report on women’s ordination that I cited to you and will keep an open mind. Many Anglicans, noted Anglicans, are opposed to WO. Bishop John-David Schofield, a true man of God, the Bishop of San Joaquin here in my area and Bishop Jack Iker, another great man, Bishop of Fort Worth, are both opposed to WO. It’s a wedge issue that has done more harm than good and fractured the heck out of Catholic-Orthodox-Anglican dialogues and ecumenism that looked promising for a while. Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA (Orthodox Church of America) addressed the Anglicans of ACNA in Texas at their big kick-off convention. He discussed the desire he and many Orthodox have to unite in communion with Anglicans. One of the major admonitions he gave sternly that he hopes Anglicans will abandon is WO. He said it keeps the Anglicans from union with Orthodoxy and it will remain so until this abnormality is ended.

You have mentioned the Orthodox a few times and have sought to characterize them as open-minded to WO. I would recommend this link orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/SchmemannOrdination.php and article from the late Alexander Schmemann. I’ve read several of his books. He was a devout and highly-respected Orthdox priest and prolific writer. He’s dead against WO. Here is another article from Orthodoxy Today and it very succinctly lays out the Orthodox view: orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/MorrisFeminism.php

I would again re-iterate that nine times out of ten every website, book, etc. that you read that has a pro-women’s ordination stance is also PRO ABORTION. They seem to go hand in hand. Just an observation. Scary food for thought.

QUOTE=Anna Scott;6294295]Response to gurneyhalleck1–Part 3 of 3

Irrelavant to the discussion of whether or not there were female Apostles.

Again, historically, the claim of no female Apostles is disputed, and continues to be disputed by many, today, including the Eastern Orthodox Church.

There was, also, Tabitha, a Disciple:

Irrelavant to the issue of whether or not there were female Apostles.

Irrelavant to the issue of whether or not there were female Apostles.

You gave resources for me to consider; and I welcome them–I am investigating the Episcopal/Anglican Church.

I, also, leave you with a resource to consider regarding the issue of female Apostles (not trying to open a discussion about female Priests & I know this website is going to upset you–try to focus on the female Apostle issue): romancatholicwomenpriests.org/RCWP_Resource.pdf

Quotes from this link (please let me know, if you find any misquotes here-emphasis is mine):

I would like you to consider the fact that the issue of female Apostles is a debate that has gone on for centuries and continues today. Scholars/Theologians still debate the meaning of Romans 16:

I would also ask that you not underestimate the significance of Galations 3:27-29.

At least we both agree that our discussion about female Apostles has run its course. I appreciate your comments and contributions to the topic.

May God’s peace be with you,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

May God’s peace be with you as well. I wish you well on your journey. I truly hope you’ll read the Anglican AMIA report on women’s ordination that I cited to you and will keep an open mind. Many Anglicans, noted Anglicans, are opposed to WO. Bishop John-David Schofield, a true man of God, the Bishop of San Joaquin here in my area and Bishop Jack Iker, another great man, Bishop of Fort Worth, are both opposed to WO. It’s a wedge issue that has done more harm than good and fractured the heck out of Catholic-Orthodox-Anglican dialogues and ecumenism that looked promising for a while. Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA (Orthodox Church of America) addressed the Anglicans of ACNA in Texas at their big kick-off convention. He discussed the desire he and many Orthodox have to unite in communion with Anglicans. One of the major admonitions he gave sternly that he hopes Anglicans will abandon is WO. He said it keeps the Anglicans from union with Orthodoxy and it will remain so until this abnormality is ended.

I will read these things you suggested. I am still investigating the Episcopal/Anglican Church. It will take time. I’m not rushing into anything. As I have said many times, I have a great respect for Catholics. And in spite of my openness to women’s ordination, I do respect the consistency of the Catholic Church on issues of faith and morals.

You have mentioned the Orthodox a few times and have sought to characterize them as open-minded to WO. I would recommend this link orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/SchmemannOrdination.php and article from the late Alexander Schmemann. I’ve read several of his books. He was a devout and highly-respected Orthdox priest and prolific writer. He’s dead against WO. Here is another article from Orthodoxy Today and it very succinctly lays out the Orthodox view: orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/MorrisFeminism.php

Here, you have misunderstood my posts. I never said or implied that the Orthodox are open to women’s ordination; only that they acknowledge female Apostles. If you look back over my posts, you will see this.

I would again re-iterate that nine times out of ten every website, book, etc. that you read that has a pro-women’s ordination stance is also PRO ABORTION. They seem to go hand in hand. Just an observation. Scary food for thought.

I do realize this is the case in many instances. I am against abortion; and yes that is a scary thought. Though when you find those working for the rights of women, many things are thrown in the mix.

Actually, the web link I gave you yesterday, is a site promoting the Priesthood of Women in the Catholic Church. I was rather surprised to find this. It is an interesting movement to follow.

I did read Pope Benedict XVI’s Women in the Early Church.
Link: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16ChrstChrch30.HTM. He spoke very highly of women. He quoted St. Tomas Aquinas, regarding Mary Magdalene:

It was precisely to Mary Magdalene that St. Thomas Aquinas reserved the special title,** “Apostle of the Apostles”** (apostolorum apostola), dedicating to her this beautiful comment: “Just as a woman had announced the words of death to the first man, so also a woman was the first to announce to the Apostles the words of life” (Super Ioannem, ed. Cai, § 2519).

I also read the** Letter of Pope John Paul II to Women** (From the Vatican, 29 June 1995, the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul).
Link: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html
Quote:

The Church sees in Mary the highest expression of the “feminine genius” and she finds in her a source of constant inspiration. Mary called herself the “handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38). Through obedience to the Word of God she accepted her lofty yet not easy vocation as wife and mother in the family of Nazareth. Putting herself at God’s service, she also put herself at the service of others: a service of love. Precisely through this service Mary was able to experience in her life a mysterious, but authentic “reign”. It is not by chance that she is invoked as “Queen of heaven and earth”. The entire community of believers thus invokes her; many nations and peoples call upon her as their “Queen”. For her, “to reign” is to serve! Her service is “to reign”!

I realize these Popes did not give women the tile of Apostle in the same sense as the male Apostles, nor did they believe any rites of ordination were given to them. So, I am aware of the Catholic viewpoint.

gurneyalleck1, one thing I admire about you is that I never have to wonder where you stand on an issue. You are, indeed, passionate about your beliefs; and I respect that.

I am still on my journey. Formally leaving the Baptist Church was a tough decision. I will say these forums have opened my eyes to many things, since I joined in May 2009. So, who knows where I will end up. Is it possible to become Catholic by osmosis?

In Christ,
Anna

 

[KathleenGee]

Hello Anna,
I am keeping you in my prayers, and glad to see you stay tuned to your own steady and kind pace.

May I add some comments to the role of women in the RC Church? We have a tradition going back to the recognition of holy women. I try to pray the Liturgy of the Hours best I can, and it is an excellent source of prayer that draws both on Vatican II documents as well as ancient treatises, sermons by ancient ECF as well as bishops and popes down through the ages. There are Masses with appropriate readings that are used to honor holy women.

I also agree with Contranini that there has definitely been an abuse of clerical power by Catholic priests that created a culture of its own, some nationalities of peoples more vulnerable to being dominated than others…

But all it takes is one or two outstanding Catholic priests who are faithful to the dignity and humility of Christ to be servants, to place themselves at others’ feet, to disregard others’ attitudes…and we are always exhorted to pray for them. This is the year of the Priesthood and we honor and thank them and pray for them in their total dedication to Christ through us and people in the world. They meet all types of people all the time, and if they were married, perhaps they would not have that access. I don’t mean that as stereotyping, but the celibate priesthood does give them alot more freedom to serve.

The primary focus is that daily focus on the character of Jesus Christ – without compromise to the world and recognition of what we can’t do, but through Him all things are possible. The key is self denial, no compromise. And in that a Catholic does have strength of faith where it is more transcendent and mystical, day to day.

I never thought anything of women’s ordination. I just slightly wondered why we had only male priests. I worked overseas in a rough area. I went out enthusiastically. The country was undergoing immense historical changes. Wars and fighting and very bad relations among people, others suffering greatly…alot of diseases and dangers…the more I was there, the more I needed cover. I was treated as an equal by the clergy, and they were very inclusive with me in fraternal life…like brothers. But the more I was there, I began to see my feminine side needing more protection. We shared hard experiences, and I had a greater receptacle, things affected me more deeply, and I didn’t have quite the bounce they had to go back to it the next day.

I have the impression that it is in affluent cultures that we have more issues of seeing women in controversy, that we are more at peace with a unisex model. But if we become poor, and the economy is looking that way, I wonder if more traditional way of living will come about…my family and relations enjoyed restaurant life. We are going more into home cooking. And now we all love being more at home in peace and love and celebrating than going out.

St. Thomas Aquinas was great in defining God, etc. But when it came to women, I would not go to him; same with St. Augustine who was quite sexually liberal before his conversion. St. Thomas considered women having defective genes. He did not believe Mary was immaculately conceived. My pastor shared with us last week that the earliest Christians always upheld the Blessed Mother, and considered the home in Nazareth between the faces of mother and Son as sinless. But it took the church almost 2,000 years to define that she was indeed conceived without sin.

That Immaculate Conception is another fruit of the transcendent presence of Christ…no compromise with the world … or the flesh. He is the means by which the carnate universe was formed by our Father.

For myself, having discovered my limitations as a woman working with priests in a dangerous land without a female companion, I must admit, I began to loose my own sense of self and productivity. I came to a place where the people were very sick and had wanted to work there, but had no female companion. It did turn out the priests themselves had visited it before and thought it hopeless for them and left. They were very surprised when I said that is where I felt God’s strength…but the revolution continued, the agitation of such language afflicted me and I came home.

But what was the other point, the great experience that helped restore my own dignity separate from men who pretty much create the world as well as our homes, was Mary. It was in Mary that I came to know there, not that I saw in America before, that helped restore my own dignity and worth, even though I can’t deal with alot of fighting, or dangerous people or animals, or I get emotional and cry if things get too much. Mary helps me know that I am equal to men. And women bring love and acceptance into the world and nurture others into being, and absorb the pain of others, nursing them back to life.

Mother Theresa said that women in general, and of course we see exceptional women all the time through the media, women are known more for doing great work in the little things of daily life. I laugh at an African priest here in America who said on Mother’s Day, what would the world be like without women…you would see men every where, on the streets, in the buildings…it would smell different, they would have a different way of living…and being because women aren’t around…

So I tend to agree with the RC Church’s position regarding women not called to the priesthood. But we share in the priesthood by bringing holiness to daily life and to be strong moral presence to those around us by how we live, not by what we say…or preach.

 

[bbcrane]

I would like to thank everyone for their (name removed by moderator)ut to my question. It has given me much food for thought and I plan to spend the lenten season in prayerful consideration of where my God is leading me.

God’s peace be with you!

Barbara Crane