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

[Contarini]

Not to be THAT guy, but I wonder if your recognize the extents of the differrence you are contemplating. Your posts indicates some rather catholic thinking that may not be very prevalent in Episcopalian circles. Contarini is a superb and precise resource for historic Anglican theology, but there frankly aren’t many left like him in the Episcopal Church.

You are too kind, but actually I’m not as unusual as you think. At least in my diocese, I’m very much in the mainstream. Admittedly this is one of the more conservative dioceses left in the Episcopal Church–I’m certainly right of center in terms of TEC as a whole.

But there are some unjustifiably lurid things said on this forum about the Episcopal church. We remain much more committed to historic Christianity than the common wisdom in conservative American Christian circles has it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Observing that the only female “priests” in Christian history were gnostic (!!) heretics is compelling

Actually I think it’s compelling in the other direction. Clearly in that culture people could not conceive of women being biologically equal to men and having institutional authority. Hence the only groups that ordained women were either Gnostics (who thought bodies didn’t matter) or Montanists (who thought institutional authority didn’t matter).

It seems clear to me that the reason women were not historically ordained in the Catholic Church is that women were considered to be inferior biologically. In the absence of that cultural belief, the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation mandates the opening of the priesthood to women.

This is an argument I have frequently made on this forum. It has been often avoided, rarely addressed, and never to my memory and judgment refuted.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

manualman,
This may be the case in Some Episcopal Churches. I can’t say, since I am only visiting one. I am not finding such a loose acceptance of beliefs, as you describe.

The Episcopal Priest seems to hold fast to a more orthodox view of Christianity, with some Eastern Orthodox “leanings.” For example, he has taken a firm stance against the ordination of, and marital union of those in “same-sex affection” relationships.

The Priest’s view on the Eucharist, though not claiming “transubstantiation,” does treat the consecrated bread and wine with all reverence–never to be disposed of, as in many Protestant Churches–which treat the Lord’s Supper as purely “remembrance.”

The Priest does reserve consecrated bread and wine for Communion of those who are ill or otherwise unable to attend the Eucharist–even though Article 28 speaks against reserving or carrying about the Sacrament: “The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.”

The Worship services are heavily liturgical and reverent, appearing much like a Catholic Mass.

The sacramental and liturgical characteristics you describe are typical of the Episcopal Church in my experience.

Very interesting comments. I can see the logic in what you are saying; and I have given Catholicism much consideration, myself.

Yet, must ask what obstacles you see, personally, that prevent your own “reconciliation” with the Catholic Church?

Anna

Well, first of all my situation is very different from that of someone already Catholic. If I were one already, I certainly wouldn’t leave. But I’m not. For better or worse I did make the decision to join the Episcopal Church, and I take the severing of church ties very seriously. Furthermore, my wife is never going to become Catholic as far as I can see.

These factors wouldn’t be enough on their own. But I have and always will have doubts about a number of Catholic teachings. The question of ordination is a big issue. As I said above to gurneyhalleck, I think that the Christian teaching regarding the Incarnation mandates openness to the ordination of women in the absence of a cultural assumption regarding the biological inferiority of women. But as I’ve thought about this issue, I’ve realized that one reason many Catholics don’t accept this argument is that they assume that ordination and our incorporation into Christ through baptism are two different things. I don’t think they are. I see ordination as a particular kind of “activation” of our common priesthood for the good of the rest of the Church. I’m not even sure that Luther was wrong when he suggested that in emergency circumstances a group of laypeople could set aside one of their number to celebrate the Eucharist. In other words, I think that the Reformers were onto something with the concept of the “priesthood of all believers.” As Catholics here will point out, the priesthood of all believers isn’t necessarily a non-Catholic concept. But I think there is a level of clericalism in Catholicism that is deeply unhealthy in many ways. And I’m not sure that this is simply an organizational abuse.

There are plenty of other issues, but most of the doctrinal points (like the Immaculate Conception) are things that I don’t think I’m competent to judge. What I can judge is that the Roman Communion does not in *practice *fully embody the Catholic Faith. There are valid expressions of Christian faith and practice found outside the Roman Communion and from which the Roman Communion needs to learn. So what I can judge tells against the claims of Rome to embody the fullness of the Faith. Of course it may be that this is irrelevant and that on an ontological level the fullness is there–it just needs to be more fully expressed. But I can’t judge that. I remain in doubt and always will. And under those circumstances, the best I can do is work for a greater expression of the fullness of the Faith where I am, in the deeply flawed Episcopal Church

Edwin

 

[Anna_Scott]

The sacramental and liturgical characteristics you describe are typical of the Episcopal Church in my experience.

Well, first of all my situation is very different from that of someone already Catholic. If I were one already, I certainly wouldn’t leave. But I’m not. For better or worse I did make the decision to join the Episcopal Church, and I take the severing of church ties very seriously. Furthermore, my wife is never going to become Catholic as far as I can see.

These factors wouldn’t be enough on their own. But I have and always will have doubts about a number of Catholic teachings. The question of ordination is a big issue. As I said above to gurneyhalleck, I think that the Christian teaching regarding the Incarnation mandates openness to the ordination of women in the absence of a cultural assumption regarding the biological inferiority of women. But as I’ve thought about this issue, I’ve realized that one reason many Catholics don’t accept this argument is that they assume that ordination and our incorporation into Christ through baptism are two different things. I don’t think they are. I see ordination as a particular kind of “activation” of our common priesthood for the good of the rest of the Church. I’m not even sure that Luther was wrong when he suggested that in emergency circumstances a group of laypeople could set aside one of their number to celebrate the Eucharist. In other words, I think that the Reformers were onto something with the concept of the “priesthood of all believers.” As Catholics here will point out, the priesthood of all believers isn’t necessarily a non-Catholic concept. But I think there is a level of clericalism in Catholicism that is deeply unhealthy in many ways. And I’m not sure that this is simply an organizational abuse.

There are plenty of other issues, but most of the doctrinal points (like the Immaculate Conception) are things that I don’t think I’m competent to judge. What I can judge is that the Roman Communion does not in *practice *fully embody the Catholic Faith. There are valid expressions of Christian faith and practice found outside the Roman Communion and from which the Roman Communion needs to learn. So what I can judge tells against the claims of Rome to embody the fullness of the Faith. Of course it may be that this is irrelevant and that on an ontological level the fullness is there–it just needs to be more fully expressed. But I can’t judge that. I remain in doubt and always will. And under those circumstances, the best I can do is work for a greater expression of the fullness of the Faith where I am, in the deeply flawed Episcopal Church

Edwin

Edwin,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I think some of the same issues keep me from Catholicism, as well. I see no Biblical objection to the ordination of women. I recognize the importance of tradition; but sometimes tradition includes prejudices of particular points in history.

That is certainly the case for the role of women, and it was the case for the Jewish people–though Vatican II took a huge leap forward in regards to the view of the Jewish connection to Christianity, and a better understanding of God’s Covenant with the Jews–not as much as the Jewish people hoped–but a huge leap forward, nonetheless.

I have unanswered questions about the concept of the Immaculate Conception. I don’t find the idea offensive, just haven’t been able to find sufficient justification. Further study could change my mind. I can’t really say at this point.

I do believe Mary deserves far more respect than she is given in most of the Protestant sector. I grew up in Baptist Churches, rarely hearing the name of Mary spoken, except during the Christmas Biblical narratives.

From what I can gather from my short time visiting the Episcopal Church; I do see that they honor Mary’s great obedience to God, her role as a descendant of David and Mother of our Lord; and the recognition of the agony she endured as her Son was crucified.

I do have an objection to the Catholic invocation of departed Saints. Not sure I will come around on this issue.

I do admire the moral consistency of the Catholic Church. Yet, the role of the Pope is an issue. I know that his teachings are not considered infallible, unless he is speaking Ex Cathedra. Some Catholics have said they may disagree with the Pope on certain “fallible” interpretations/teachings; but submit to the authority of the Church. While admirable–for me, personally; I can’t see myself yielding to an infallible teaching that may change a few years down the road. I think Vatican II demonstrated just how much Papal teaching can change over time.

I agree that the Episcopal Church is flawed; but most Churches are to some extent. I will continue my studies. I am making quite a list of questions for the Episcopal Priest.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

An interesting hypothesis but I cannot agree. The Scriptures clearly show the importance of women whether in leadership positions like Deborah and Phoebe or being held in high esteem by Our Lord like Mary Magdelene, Martha and Mary, and the BVM. I find it hard to believe that early Christians felt the Blessed Virgin Mary not biologically equal to men. Quite the opposite. I believe “roles” is the angle to look toward, not biological inferiority. Are men and women meant to have the same roles in every single avenue of life? Are men biologically inferior because they cannot bear children? Are women biologically inferior because they cannot be a father for their congregation in persona christi? No. The role of priest is fatherly. Was in the early church, is now, ever shall be, to coin a phrase. A priest functions as Christ for us in the sacramental life of the Church, a father, and a mother is the innate role of women, a blessing and not a curse. A father cannot be a mother and vice versa. I think to carry the biological inferiority hypothesis to its conclusion, one would have to say Jesus Himself felt women inferior then (which I totally reject). All 12 Apostles were male. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, that if Jesus Christ wished for women to play the role of priest, they would have indeed been ordained as apostles. No doubt Mary Magdalene had faith in Jesus that seemed to rival the apostles at times! She was close to the Lord and the first to see Him risen, was present at His passion, and loved him dearly. She was obviously a repentent, changed woman. And yet Christ didn’t ordain her? Some would say, “well, Jesus didn’t ordain her because the culture He lived in treated women like property and wouldn’t have put up with it or taken Him seriously.” I say “bull” to that. Jesus was no shrinking violet coward afraid to take on his society’s prejudices, hypocrisy, and idiotic soapbox triumphalism. A man willing to proclaim Himself the Son of Man in public, willing to overturn the money-changers tables and create chaos in a marketplace, willing to take on the Pharisees power machine head on calling them hypocrites openly in public, willing to wine and dine with tax collectors, and willing to converse and speak kindly to Romans, surely a man such as this would’ve ordained a woman if He thought it proper. To imply otherwise implies Christ was a coward, which I reject. His society had no control over His choices. No women apostles was the model for the early Church and the Church has maintained that model. The group that was willing to go against the sactity and caution of the church were the gnostics, a vile group of heretics.

From an Anglican perspective I would encourage reading the AMIA report on female ordination put out a few years back. It is thoughtful, charitable, intelligent, and a comprehensive report studying the issue with a rejection of WO as its final recommendation. It was a step in the right direction IMO.

Not accepting women’s ordination is not a bigotted, prejudiced, or unenlightened theological opinion. It is consistent with 2,000 years of Christendom. A mother cannot be a father. It is about roles related to the gender given us by God Himself, something to be embraced, not lamented upon. Seeing the wonderful bond my wife had day one with my three children, a bond I could never have in that special way, I think women are deeply blessed. It is men who miss out in that unique role. In any case, in secular life I have no problem with women, no taint of chauvenism, I simply hold fast to the traditions and practice of the Catholic faith. And I think most Catholics, generally speaking, feel the same way in CAF about WO, no sense of women being inferior, just different than men with a different role.

Actually I think it’s compelling in the other direction. Clearly in that culture people could not conceive of women being biologically equal to men and having institutional authority. Hence the only groups that ordained women were either Gnostics (who thought bodies didn’t matter) or Montanists (who thought institutional authority didn’t matter).

It seems clear to me that the reason women were not historically ordained in the Catholic Church is that women were considered to be inferior biologically. In the absence of that cultural belief, the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation mandates the opening of the priesthood to women.

This is an argument I have frequently made on this forum. It has been often avoided, rarely addressed, and never to my memory and judgment refuted.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Anna,

Just a couple of questions…

What about Vatican II showed you how much papal positions can change? And also what in Scripture do you see PERMITTING women’s ordination? You say there is no Biblical objection. 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?

And how do you know that tradition is prejudiced and not your sensibilities being prejudiced by the secular world? How can you be so sure it is not you who is being prejudiced but rather the Church thanks to bogus traditions?

And what is morally inconsistent about the Catholic Church? Give examples please.

Thanks, God bless you in your search…

Edwin,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I think some of the same issues keep me from Catholicism, as well. I see no Biblical objection to the ordination of women. I recognize the importance of tradition; but sometimes tradition includes prejudices of particular points in history.

That is certainly the case for the role of women, and it was the case for the Jewish people–though Vatican II took a huge leap forward in regards to the view of the Jewish connection to Christianity, and a better understanding of God’s Covenant with the Jews–not as much as the Jewish people hoped–but a huge leap forward, nonetheless.

I have unanswered questions about the concept of the Immaculate Conception. I don’t find the idea offensive, just haven’t been able to find sufficient justification. Further study could change my mind. I can’t really say at this point.

I do believe Mary deserves far more respect than she is given in most of the Protestant sector. I grew up in Baptist Churches, rarely hearing the name of Mary spoken, except during the Christmas Biblical narratives.

From what I can gather from my short time visiting the Episcopal Church; I do see that they honor Mary’s great obedience to God, her role as a descendant of David and Mother of our Lord; and the recognition of the agony she endured as her Son was crucified.

I do have an objection to the Catholic invocation of departed Saints. Not sure I will come around on this issue.

I do admire the moral consistency of the Catholic Church. Yet, the role of the Pope is an issue. I know that his teachings are not considered infallible, unless he is speaking Ex Cathedra. Some Catholics have said they may disagree with the Pope on certain “fallible” interpretations/teachings; but submit to the authority of the Church. While admirable–for me, personally; I can’t see myself yielding to an infallible teaching that may change a few years down the road. I think Vatican II demonstrated just how much Papal teaching can change over time.

I agree that the Episcopal Church is flawed; but most Churches are to some extent. I will continue my studies. I am making quite a list of questions for the Episcopal Priest.

Anna

 

[peary1]

Hi, I am a 50 year old female cradle Catholic who is very seriously considering moving to Episcopalian. I have always felt that my core beliefs fit in more with the Episcopalian beliefs and I guess I am tired of being a cafeteria Catholic and want to be true to myself. However, I have some core beliefs that I want to make sure that I stay true to. That is why I am searching for answers in many different forums. In a nutshell, I don’t believe in the Pope’s infallibility, I think priests should be allowed to marry, I think women should be allowed to be priests. I have always said that what kept me Catholic though, was from the Catholic catechism where it talks about monotheistic religions having a plan of salvation. I definitely believe that so want to stay true to that.

Why would you do that? The don’t have a valid Eucharist. If you are so tired of being a ‘cafeteria’ Catholic, then why not become an authentic one?

Either the Catholic Church is the true Church or it isn’t. And it has existed longer than any other institution on earth, as is accorded by Christ’s promise.

It really doesn’t matter WHAT you believe because you are not looking for anything authentic, you are merely looking for what YOU want personally.

If the Eucharist doesn’t keep you in the Church, then your have lost your Faith. PERIOD.

 

[bbcrane]

Why would you do that? The don’t have a valid Eucharist. If you are so tired of being a ‘cafeteria’ Catholic, then why not become an authentic one?

Either the Catholic Church is the true Church or it isn’t. And it has existed longer than any other institution on earth, as is accorded by Christ’s promise.

It really doesn’t matter WHAT you believe because you are not looking for anything authentic, you are merely looking for what YOU want personally.

If the Eucharist doesn’t keep you in the Church, then your have lost your Faith. PERIOD.

I disagree with your summation. In my opinion, I am not a lemming and thus have my own thoughts and my own beliefs and am no longer going to accept what is blindly being put in front of me without question. I haven’t lost my faith. Quite the contrary. I have never been more in tune with my beliefs than I am right at this moment.

 

[bbcrane]

Hi, I am a 50 year old female cradle Catholic who is very seriously considering moving to Episcopalian. I have always felt that my core beliefs fit in more with the Episcopalian beliefs and I guess I am tired of being a cafeteria Catholic and want to be true to myself. However, I have some core beliefs that I want to make sure that I stay true to. That is why I am searching for answers in many different forums. In a nutshell, I don’t believe in the Pope’s infallibility, I think priests should be allowed to marry, I think women should be allowed to be priests. I have always said that what kept me Catholic though, was from the Catholic catechism where it talks about monotheistic religions having a plan of salvation. I definitely believe that so want to stay true to that.

I think I found my answer, thanks to Anna for sending the links.

“[BXVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the
Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that
Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of
Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.”

from the Articles of Religion, Anglicans Online | The Thirty-Nine Articles

 

[Contarini]

I think I found my answer, thanks to Anna for sending the links.

“[BXVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the
Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that
Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of
Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.”

from the Articles of Religion, Anglicans Online | The Thirty-Nine Articles

That is what I referred to earlier. But as I said, the 39 Articles are not generally considered binding by Episcopalians. I was not asked to subscribe to them when I was confirmed.

I repeat: you would be extremely unlikely to find among Episcopalians (at least Episcopal clergy) a more restrictive view on this subject than that taught by the Catholic Church.

Edwin

 

[peary1]

I disagree with your summation. In my opinion, I am not a lemming and thus have my own thoughts and my own beliefs and am no longer going to accept what is blindly being put in front of me without question. I haven’t lost my faith. Quite the contrary. I have never been more in tune with my beliefs than I am right at this moment.

Again, your answer speaks for itself. It’s what YOU want, not what God wants. And, as I said, if the Eucharist and Real Presence doesn’t keep you in the Church because you KNOW it is the Truth, then you have lost faith. And may I reiterate: once you lose the Eucharist, you’ve lost your salvation.

 

[manualman]

Anna, I’m glad to hear that your Episcopal parish experience is rather differant than what I observed at the Episcopal parish I walked past 4 times a day while in college in Madison Wisconsin in the early 1990’s. (You thought I made the Wiccan thing up, didn’t you? )

I do encourage you, the OP and Edwin to ponder a possibility not yet discussed here. Why is it always assumed that if women can’t be priests they must be considered inferior to men? What is it about the priesthood that implies superiority to you? This always seems to indicate some kind of deep seated clericalist assumptions to me. I don’t see myself as necessarily spiritually inferior to a priest just because he is a priest, why should any woman? Priesthood is a role, not a status. It is true that there are some power issues that come with a male only priesthood. But perhaps that has more to do with the sanctification / humiliation that men need than any lacking on the part of women. There’s just too much supposition for my comfort level. We don’t get to “best guess” revelation, we need to stick with what was actually revealed.

Jesus never had any problem breaking cultural taboos about women. He walked right up to that outcast woman at the well and asked for a drink. That right there was enough to brand him an associate of harlots! Didn’t care. Spoke to Samaritan women too. Still didn’t care that that was a shocking transgression. But we’re supposed to believe that he was too afraid of offending people to make someone like Mary Magdalene a formal apostle? The same Jesus that told people that if they didn’t gnaw on his flesh they’d have no life in them?

THAT Jesus worried too much what people would think if he made women apostles? That’s WAY too much off of formal revelation and is tantamount to saying you can read God’s mind. You’re better off correcting a mistaken idea about the “elevated status” of priests than agitating for women priests. That’s my conclusion.

 

[bbcrane]

Again, your answer speaks for itself. It’s what YOU want, not what God wants. And, as I said, if the Eucharist and Real Presence doesn’t keep you in the Church because you KNOW it is the Truth, then you have lost faith. And may I reiterate: once you lose the Eucharist, you’ve lost your salvation.

And you presume to know what God wants for me??? You my dear exemplify part of the reason I would even consider leaving. My God is not a God that says I have to be CATHOLIC for salvation. AND for you information, THAT is not what the Catholic church teaches. That is your own narrowmindedness speaking. So, God bless you!

 

[Contarini]

I do encourage you, the OP and Edwin to ponder a possibility not yet discussed here. Why is it always assumed that if women can’t be priests they must be considered inferior to men?

I don’t recall making that argument. I recall pointing out that women were considered biologically inferior for a very long time. The arguments I have seen against the validity of women’s ordination that don’t imply some kind of inferiority wind up doing something much worse–they posit what is in effect a separate female nature, which would logically imply a separate incarnation like that believed in by the Shakers. I’m not accusing opponents of women’s ordination of necessarily believing women are inferior. (Some may, some may not.) I’m accusing them of maintaining a position which cannot be reconciled with orthodox Christology or anthropology in the *absence *of a cultural assumption about women’s inferiority. Unfortunately, no matter how many times I say this, I keep getting responses that assume I’m making some kind of “political” argument.

The traditional position did assume women’s inferiority. It assumed that men fully represented the common human nature in a way that women (because of their inferior bodies) could not. Therefore, it was orthodox, although chauvinist. You can oppose women’s ordination and not be chauvinist, but only at the price of throwing orthodoxy out the window.

Here’s an example that may help explain what I’m arguing:

Suppose we discover a sentient alien race, and some of them convert to Christianity. Would those aliens be able to be priests or not? If they couldn’t, then one could legitimately ask why we baptized them in the first place. If because they are not human they don’t share in the nature assumed by Christ, then they should not be baptized. (And in fact that might be what the Church will determine if we ever encounter such beings. Perhaps such beings exist and God has some completely different way of relating to them.) To baptize them but tell them they can’t be priests *is *to assert their inferiority, because it is to say that they partially share in the nature Christ assumed, but not fully.

So yes, I think that if women can be baptized but not ordained then they are clearly inferior, given the Catholic theology of the priesthood.

What is it about the priesthood that implies superiority to you?

It would be that whole “alter Christus” thing.

This always seems to indicate some kind of deep seated clericalist assumptions to me

Only in the sense that such assumptions are central to the Catholic theology of ordination. If the priesthood were really seen as just one among many callings within the Church, then you might have a point. But it clearly isn’t.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t see myself as necessarily spiritually inferior to a priest

Of course not, for two reasons:

1. If by “spiritually inferior” you mean “less personally pious,” then of course that’s not in question here. But furthermore
2. As a man, you are ontologically *capable *of being ordained. So you are comparing applies and oranges. It’s not the *fact *of being ordained that indicates superiority. It’s the *capacity *to be ordained. That is also the answer to the flimsy argument “why didn’t Jesus ordain women if women could be ordained?” As opponents of women’s ordination rightly (but irrelevantly) point out, there is no right to ordination. That’s not the issue at all. But when you say that women are “invalid matter,” you are saying something about women’s nature. Or rather, as I said above, you are saying one of two things. Either women have a “separate but equal” nature (along the lines of hypothetical aliens for whom some other plan of salvation has been provided), in which case they shouldn’t be Christians at all (or should have their own incarnation a la the Shakers), or women are in fact inferior.

Priesthood is a role

I don’t think that exhausts the way the Catholic tradition speaks about the priesthood.

It is true that there are some power issues that come with a male only priesthood.

More to the point, St. Thomas Aquinas *explicitly *says that women lack the ruling faculty and hence should not have any kind of authority. It is simply anachronistic and blind to claim that this had nothing to do with why women were traditionally excluded from ordination. This is not just about women wanting power. It’s about historical honesty. The defenders of the male-only priesthood whitewash the tradition by denying in the teeth of the evidence that the exclusion of women had anything to do with the belief that women were inferior.

If you would vote for a woman for President, then you’ve already abandoned the principle that underlay the exclusion of women from the priesthood. I do not advocate the subordination of women in civil life. But those who maintain this at least have a coherent view. What makes no sense at all is to allow women happily to have power in other areas and exclude them from the priesthood. And it borders on hypocrisy to then claim that the priesthood doesn’t have anything to do with power and that those who think it does are “clericalists.” Sure–Aquinas was a clericalist too. Early Christians were clericalists. There is no reason to think that they would have excluded women from the priesthood otherwise. That’s why women could be pagan priestesses–because pagan priestesses had purely ritual functions. Christian “priests” were presbyters, elders of the community, rulers. That adequately explains the fact that the Catholic Church did not traditionally ordain women.

Jesus never had any problem breaking cultural taboos about women.

When necessary. Clearly He didn’t think this one was necessary.

But we’re supposed to believe that he was too afraid of offending people to make someone like Mary Magdalene a formal apostle?

But why would He? You are the one “reading God’s mind.” You’re claiming to know what Jesus would have done. I’m not doing that. I’m pointing to things we can actually verify historically–attitudes that can be found in texts from most periods in history.

Again: ordination is not a right. Ordination is for the good of the Church, not for personal self-fulfillment. The fact that no women were ordained for most of the Church’s history was not a wrong done to women. Jesus was not (in anything like the modern sense) a feminist.

But the claim that women are biologically inferior is false. And that being the case, the claim that women are ontologically incapable of being ordained is incompatible with the baptism of women. If women are saved through Jesus, and if women’s biology is not imperfect, then women are valid matter for ordination. That does not necessarily result in any women actually being ordained, although in practice it presumably would do so (and of course has done so, in my belief).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I disagree with your summation. In my opinion, I am not a lemming and thus have my own thoughts and my own beliefs and am no longer going to accept what is blindly being put in front of me without question. I haven’t lost my faith. Quite the contrary. I have never been more in tune with my beliefs than I am right at this moment.

I would respectfully like to question your assumption that “having faith” in the Christian sense is the same thing as “being in tune with your beliefs.” Faith is a gift of God, not just a set of beliefs.

Plenty of people may be fully in tune with their beliefs without having faith. And the gift of faith may produce a serious conflict with many beliefs a person holds.

Please understand that I am not challenging your faith. I know nothing about your faith. I know that I have very little faith and am in no position to judge anyone else’s. I’m challenging your language.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think I found my answer, thanks to Anna for sending the links.

“[BXVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the
Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that
Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of
Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.”

from the Articles of Religion, Anglicans Online | The Thirty-Nine Articles

bbcrane,

I’m glad the resources helped, though I am not attempting to pull you away from Catholicism.

I’m searching everything I can on the Anglican/Episcopal Church–and all in prayer and supplication to our Lord. I do realize that Episcopal Churches can vary in beliefs and practices–so it is really important to find out exactly what the Episcopal Rector believes, and understand his leadership and attitude toward the Sacraments.

I see you are sincerely searching, and I pray God will lead you where He wants you to be.

God bless you,
Anna

 

[Ahimsa]

But the claim that women are biologically inferior is false. And that being the case, the claim that women are ontologically incapable of being ordained is incompatible with the baptism of women.

Devil’s Advocate (or, rather, Catholic’s Advocate): What if the essence of the historical claim is not that women are biologically inferior, but that women are biologically different?

 

[manualman]

As usual, you argue your position with clarity and excellent logic. But I still see just a little too much faith in reason over revelation here for my comfort level. Faith is indeed not in competition with reason as BXVI frequently affirms. But you are jumping to a conclusion that would in secular history make perfect sense that is IMO dangerous in theology.

I fully agree that humanity has historically unfairly denigrated the very value of woman in comparison to man. It can’t reasonably be denied that that historical reality manifests itself in Church history as well (such as your citation from Aquinas demonstrates). But this is NOT proof of the SOURCE of the Tradition of male only priesthood. Let me give an example. Mosaic law established a large number of practices that were followed for MORAL reasons, not hygenic as we think of them today. Regardless of the motivation behind the adherence of the Israelites to these practices, it cannot be denied that many of them had MAJOR beneficial health benefits the causes of which would not have been comprehensible to the medical knowledge of the day. In short, God gave them a revelation that had benefits beyond their comprehension.

You argue that it was irrelevant that Jesus ordained only men, but for this to be true Jesus would have to have been blind to the cultural injustice suffered by women in that day. Is that realistic? Was Jesus the kind of guy to see an injustice and not recognize that his own actions were going to give further ammunition to those who sought to perpetuate it?

I don’t think it is necessary to say that man and woman are of completely different substance to sustain the male ordination argument. Genesis seems pretty clear to me in stating that God creating humanity in His own image and THEN separated humanity into male and female (at least that’s what I take from the rib story). The fact that male and female have slight differences does nothing to denigrate the reality that we were jointly created in the image and likeness of God. Why can’t those differences be reason enough for God to reserve the priesthood to one? Yes, this is speculation, but what that means is that you can speculate either way, so best default to doing it the way Jesus did.

I’m not a scholar and I write like an engineer, so don’t quote me too loosely when I say that the priesthood is a “role, not a status.” That said, it has always been taught to me that the laity play a role every bit as vital in the plan of salvation as that of the priesthood. Remember, leadership in the Church is supposed to be about service, not power. It doesn’t always work that way, but only because we still have sin to deal with.

 

[bbcrane]

I would respectfully like to question your assumption that “having faith” in the Christian sense is the same thing as “being in tune with your beliefs.” Faith is a gift of God, not just a set of beliefs.

Plenty of people may be fully in tune with their beliefs without having faith. And the gift of faith may produce a serious conflict with many beliefs a person holds.

Please understand that I am not challenging your faith. I know nothing about your faith. I know that I have very little faith and am in no position to judge anyone else’s. I’m challenging your language.

In Christ,

Edwin

Edwin, Thank you for your post and I appreciate your comments. You are right; it isn’t the same thing. Maybe that is the problem; my faith. I have faith in God but not necessarily all of the teachings of the Catholic Church. However, it is more of an unsettling feeling. I don’t think that it is a bad thing to question the Church.

I have decided to set up a meeting with my parish priest and talk with him. Until now, it has been something I have shared only on here and with my husband. My kids don’t even know that I have been considering a change.

A little about me. I went to parochial school, taught by nuns. I have never strayed from the Catholic church and have been involved all my life in the church choir. I have been on parish committees for a variety of things and been on more teams in ACTS then I remember. All of this has been great, but there is still a feeling of being unsettled. I didn’t go to my parish priest first, because I wanted to do research on my own before I did. I wanted an ecumenical perspective.

As far as the comments on it being what I want instead of what God wants, well, that’s the problem. I don’t know what God wants and that is why I am searching my soul in prayer and in educating myself. I don’t profess to know everything about Catholicism but I have read the Catechism cover to cover a few times throughout my life on what the church teaches. I don’t think that God wants me to follow blindly and not pray for a deeper understanding of my faith.

Here is how I see it in a nutshell.

When I was little, I was Catholic because it was all I knew.
As I grew in my spiritual experience, I realized that I was a Christian who happened to be Catholic.
Growing still, I realized I was a Child of God, who happened to be Christian who happened to be Catholic
As an adult I have come to realize that I have a higher power that I choose to call God and I am a Catholic Christian.

For me the most important thing has been my belief in one supreme higher power, God. The rest comes after that belief because without that belief, then the rest means nothing.

So for now, still searching
Barbara