episcopal priest

  • Thread starter Thread starter willk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
While I have a great respect and admiration for GKC, he would probably think of me as one of the former group as well, given that I agree with TEC about the women’s ordination thing. FWIW.
 
masuwerte said:
While I have a great respect and admiration for GKC, he would probably think of me as one of the former group as well, given that I agree with TEC about the women’s ordination thing. FWIW.
Click to expand...
You are very generous. Thank you.

And, that being your position, yes, I do.

GKC
 
masuwerte said:
While I have a great respect and admiration for GKC, he would probably think of me as one of the former group as well, given that I agree with TEC about the women’s ordination thing. FWIW.
Click to expand...
As far as I can see, the former are part of the original…👍

God Bless!
 
Mark, I appreciate your explaining your thoughts, but I still think you are oversimplifying things. The fact that women cannot be priests does NOT necessarily imply that they are not WORTHY of being priests.

Personally, I suspect quite the opposite. I think God designed the priesthood for men because of certain weaknesses WE have, not women.

I think men have a certain inclination towards spiritual laziness that isn’t quite as pronounced in women. I think the call to priestly life is at least partially a gift meant to act as a counter to that peculiar concupiscence. Men seem to have a built in inclination to consider spirituality some sort of weakness. Perhaps God has designed the priesthood to display the reality of strength inherent to knowing and loving God.
 
Deo_Volente said:
Grace & Peace!

Indeed.

I would love for someone to explain to me how a biological fact is an impediment to sacramental grace. I honestly cannot figure out how one can claim that a woman is improper matter for the sacrament of holy orders without holding particular notions regarding women that are at best quaint and at worst demeaning. The suggestion ultimately seems to be that women are broken or incomplete men that are incapable of receiving the sacramental graces men can receive–all 7 sacraments are available to men, but only 6 are available to women.

The idea that being a woman is on par with being mere grape juice or a rice cracker (all improper matter for a sacrament) seems particularly ludicrous to me and an affront to human dignity. This sort of Aristotelian scholasticism appears useless if not completely catastrophic in this context.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!
Click to expand...

There are many things that have constituted irregularities & impediments to the reception of a sacrament:​

  • having received Baptism is an impediment to receiving it again
  • insanity is an impediment to the reception of the sacrament of Order
  • blindness is an impediment to receiving the sacrament of Order
  • illegitimacy used to be an obstacle to ordination, & possibly to receiving other sacraments
There are many more, & most of them are little more than rather obvious measures for
  • good order in the Church (it would never do if anyone at all could be ordained)
  • avoiding abuses
  • guarding against irreverence
  • and so on
Some derive from Divine Law, others are of ecclesiastical origin, & others are of mixed origin. Some impediments can be dispensed - excommunication is an obvious example. Henry VIII’s “Great Matter” revolved around an impediment - a certain OP is the man to ask about that 🙂
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

There are many things that have constituted irregularities & impediments to the reception of a sacrament:​

  • having received Baptism is an impediment to receiving it again
  • insanity is an impediment to the reception of the sacrament of Order
  • blindness is an impediment to receiving the sacrament of Order
  • illegitimacy used to be an obstacle to ordination, & possibly to receiving other sacraments
There are many more, & most of them are little more than rather obvious measures for
  • good order in the Church (it would never do if anyone at all could be ordained)
  • avoiding abuses
  • guarding against irreverence
  • and so on
Some derive from Divine Law, others are of ecclesiastical origin, & others are of mixed origin. Some impediments can be dispensed - excommunication is an obvious example. Henry VIII’s “Great Matter” revolved around an impediment - a certain OP is the man to ask about that 🙂
Click to expand...
Hank had a diriment impediment of affinity in the first degree, collateral. The question was, was it amenable to a dispensation, as arising from natural law, or was it of divine law, ultra vires, even to a Pope.

He also had a diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty, but that never came up in the causa. It was a stronger case.

OTOH, I’m not the OP.

GKC
 
Grace & Peace!
Gottle_of_Geer said:

There are many things that have constituted irregularities & impediments to the reception of a sacrament:​

  • having received Baptism is an impediment to receiving it again
  • insanity is an impediment to the reception of the sacrament of Order
  • blindness is an impediment to receiving the sacrament of Order
  • illegitimacy used to be an obstacle to ordination, & possibly to receiving other sacraments
Click to expand...
Hi Gottle. I understand what you’re saying–I think, however, my use of the word impediment was incorrect.

If a bishop chose, I imagine he could dispense with some of the impediments you mention–the issue seems to be one of canon law or discipline rather than doctrine (similar to the discipline of the celibate priesthood). Of course he couldn’t re-baptize someone–but the point in that case is that the grace is already there–re-baptism is an act of bad faith.

Even so, blindness does not render a priest improper matter for the sacrament. It renders the priest less capable (I will not say incapable) of doing the job on the most basic day to day level. The same for an insane priest. I wouldn’t want a blind truck-driver or an insane dentist either.

But blindness and insanity imply a derivation from a particular notion of health and soundness. To include women in the category of blindness and insanity is to say that being a woman is an unsound or unhealthy condition. This makes no sense to me.
40.png
manualman:
I think God designed the priesthood for men because of certain weaknesses WE have, not women.

I think men have a certain inclination towards spiritual laziness that isn’t quite as pronounced in women. I think the call to priestly life is at least partially a gift meant to act as a counter to that peculiar concupiscence. Men seem to have a built in inclination to consider spirituality some sort of weakness. Perhaps God has designed the priesthood
Click to expand...
Manualman, I appreciate and respect your thoughts as well! I don’t, however, agree with your logic here. It makes me think of the traditional logic of the burqah–the idea that women should be covered in order to a) prevent men from having lascivious thoughts; b) protect women from the lascivious advancement of men. Both of those ideas (a & b) are rather noble (protecting men from an occassion of sin and women from an occassion of debasement), but in practice these days, it often looks like (I will not say always looks like) another way of controlling, dominating and possessing women. In other words, it looks wonderful in theory, but in practice it can be oppressive. This is my fear with your logic regarding the priesthood as an aid to men’s spiritual laziness. Moreover, it sounds to me like the gender-related version of the logic of the “white-man’s burden” which is a notion I find morally difficult to justify in any context, to say the least.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!
 
Mark,

If you and I were responsible for designing and creating our own Church, you’d have a great point. But we aren’t. Jesus designed and set up this Church the way He did. You don’t overturn the explicit design of Christ based on your own judgement unless it is absolutely incontrovertible that the original purpose has become moot because of changes in the culture.

Women covering their head and early christians following Judaic food restrictions are clear examples of this. The subtlety of just how far the differences between the sexes go are not remotely so trivial. The burden of proof lies on the party desiring the change. That burden has certainly not been met and I’d argue that it simply CAN’T be met in an age so fundamentally sexually confused as ours is.

Good discussion though.
 
manualman said:
Mark,

If you and I were responsible for designing and creating our own Church, you’d have a great point. But we aren’t. Jesus designed and set up this Church the way He did. You don’t overturn the explicit design of Christ based on your own judgement unless it is absolutely incontrovertible that the original purpose has become moot because of changes in the culture.

Women covering their head and early christians following Judaic food restrictions are clear examples of this. The subtlety of just how far the differences between the sexes go are not remotely so trivial. The burden of proof lies on the party desiring the change. That burden has certainly not been met and I’d argue that it simply CAN’T be met in an age so fundamentally sexually confused as ours is.

Good discussion though.
Click to expand...
Who was the one that Jesus first appearred to and told to go and share the Good News that He had risen?

God Bless!
 
emeraldcoast said:
Who was the one that Jesus first appearred to and told to go and share the Good News that He had risen?

God Bless!
Click to expand...
Someone He demonstrably did NOT confer apostle status on. Further evidence that those with Holy Orders are not superior to those without it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top