Episcopalian/ Anglican services

[kuanyin]

To return to the original topic.

I found myself at a choir performance last night - my first time in an Episcopal church. Is it a sin to be envious of the other guy’s church? It’s a beautiful little 19th century stone building with Tiffany stained glass windows, superb woodwork, and a choir in front of the old-fashioned “high” altar. On the altar was a veil covering (I assume) a ciborium. It gave me a very odd feeling not to genuflect; this church and altar arrangement looked more catholic than many of the Catholic churches I have visited!

“More catholic than the Catholics” is a phrase I often heard in the continuing Anglican church. Sadly, it is true that the traditional Anglican service is typically more reverential than most N.O. masses. Personally, I honestly don’t care which direction the priest faces, but I do not like the lack of respect that I have seen in N.O… I don’t like the tabernacle shunted off to the side and the destruction of the beauty of the altars was an abomination. These things have actually kept people from converting to Roman Catholicism. It is hard to take when you are used to reverence of high Mass.

BUT, you can’t hardly say “We are more catholic than the Catholics” without thinking about it. Who is the wannabe and who is the true continuing Christian church? The more I heard about how catholic we were just made me want to be truly Catholic.

I went to my friend’s Anglican church today. And it was beautiful, a little stone church that is over a 100 years old. I genuflected, I knelt to pray, just as I always did. It would have seemed rude to me not to. Christ on the cross, is still Christ. Praying is still praying. I didn’t take the Eucharist, because it would be disrespectful to my Catholic faith. I’m happy to be the real thing at last. But I also recognize that most Anglicans are really trying to be catholic. Many fervently want reunion with Rome. And it may well happen.

 

[jay29]

I don’t care about any of that. I receive when I attend the Anglican service.

‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’

 

[emeraldcoast]

‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’

Jay29,
Do you need a link to your snicker post??

God Bless!

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks, Dr. Phil!

I wonder what Dr. Phil would think of your statement:

Take Oprah, Gnosticism, the Village People, the Dalai Lama, as well as neo pagans and universalists, throw them into a salad with some abortion doctors for croutons and you have the Episcopal Church.

But a much better question to ask is what would, e.g., Fr. Mitch Pacwa over at EWTN or Fr. Frank Pavone at Priests for Life, think of that statement?

I will continue to be a “stringent ranting screamer” for God, you bet.

You might think that’s something to be proud of. I do not.

But in any case, I guess the only question left to ask here is, can you least respect this forum enough to go and be a “stringent ranting screamer for God” somewhere else?

 

[Contarini]

Why didn’t the Lord choose women?

He did choose women. You’re asking why women weren’t among the Twelve. And I don’t know, because I don’t know the basis on which He chose the Twelve. You are assuming that the gender composition of the Twelve (which we know only accidentally from the fact that all of them have clearly masculine names) was intended to be normative. You have not yet presented any argument to show this. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

The Lord’s example as well as the Apostles are all we need.

No, the authoritative teaching of your Magisterium is all you need. But the adoption of such a strained and illogical argument is one piece of evidence against the infallibility of your Magisterium. There is nothing in the Gospels to indicate that the maleness of the Twelve was significant or normative. They were all Jews too, but that doesn’t mean that Gentiles can’t be ordained.

He didn’t denounce homosexual acts either, but His Father did and even St. Paul did. St. Paul’s condemnation by itself is good enough.

You’re muddying the waters by introducing another “hot-button” issue. If you want to argue against women’s ordination based on the texts from St. Paul (whether from the undisputed or disputed writings), then that’s another issue. That’s not the argument you are making here, so your parallel is irrelevant.

So you say a woman should be made priests because she was made in the image of God. That Jesus became man…

Right. Jesus took on human nature. If he took only a “male” human nature then women could not be saved. In fact, there is no authority in Sacred Tradition for the idea that there is a “male” human nature. The Christian theologians in the Tradition who rejected women’s ordination clearly were shaped by assumptions about gender that Catholics generally no longer hold (at least the Pope clearly doesn’t, and most Catholics in the Western world don’t).

and she could recite the words of consecration and lift the chalice as good as any man…

When did I say anything about that? You are inventing this “argument” in order to make my position seem petty. But the invention is yours, so the pettiness is yours.

Jesus never chose a woman and neither did the Apostles to be priests.

Jesus never chose anyone to be priests.

Besides, the Magesterium of the Catholic Church is divinely guided.

Not an argument that will pull any weight with a non-Catholic, especially one (such as myself) for whom the sheer illogic of the current Catholic position on women’s ordination is one strong argument against the infallibility of the Magisterium.

The Orthodox will never have female priests either. Sacred Tradition is on the same level of Sacred

Scripture.

As an Anglican, I don’t accept this. And of course even if you say this, you have to find ways of distinguishing between Tradition and traditions.

Just because a woman was created in the image and likeness of God doesn’t mean she is called to be a priest. ****

You’re shifting the terms of the argument. The Catholic position is not just that no women are called to be priests, but that women are ontologically incapable of being ordained. That’s the position that violates basic Christian theology (unless you take the Aristotelian view that women are biologically defective in ways that render them incapable of holding any office involving rule or authority–I think that this probably does violate Galatians 3:28, but it’s still less clearly in conflict with orthodox anthropology and Christology than the current Catholic position is). The question of whether it is proper for women to be presbyters or hold other positions of authority in the Church is different. I appreciate the fact that the Magisterium of our day does not embrace sexism and hence would have to allow women’s ordination if they did not take refuge in this novel and illogical view that men and women have equal but different natures. I appreciate it both because it reflects well on the Magisterium and because it makes it easier to construct a cogent theological argument against the Magisterium’s position. The issue between egalitarians and those who think women shouldn’t (rather than can’t) be ordained is more complex and less strictly theological–it involves so many different cultural and exegetical assumptions that it’s hard to have a meaningful and civil conversation on the subject. But it’s clear from remarks Pope Benedict has made that he doesn’t think St. Paul’s words about women’s subjection should necessarily be taken literally. So that’s not an issue as far as I can see.

Edwin

 

[LDNCatholic]

I don’t care about any of that. I receive when I attend the Anglican service.

So you don’t care what your own Church teaches?

 

[Daedelus76]

. And they know that the Catholic Church is THE Church on a steady current for all of its personal and individual faults. It doesn’t deviate no matter how badly these liberals want it to. They jump ship to the Episcopal Church.

Well, the Anglicans actually view themselves as “the Orthodox church of the West”… it just took a couple extra centuries to come to the same conclusions the East had. I don’t want to open that can of worms, but it’s not quite like “Wow, lets go be Episcopalian instead of Catholic to spite the Pope”. As much as traditional high church Anglicans agree with alot of Roman Catholic things… there are disagreements over ecclessiology, doctrines, even praxis (most Anglo-Catholics have no problems with married priests, and some of the practices are more Orthodox/Eastern than Roman, etc.).

In addition, many Anglo-Catholics are still somewhat latitudinal and Anglican. They aren’t even that against “Reformed” theology per se. “… in all things charity”. (and actually, most Anglicans, at least officially, don’t have the Roman Catholic idea of “proper matter” so much- what is proper Eucharistic matter is what passes for bread and wine. If a third-world country finds rice cakes to be available, that’s between them and God, even though “bread and wine” in the strict sense are prefered. Likewise, the wine doesn’t have to contain any alcohol).

I would trust the advice of a fence post more than Gene Robinson or that mad professor of an “Archbishop of Canterbury” they have…oh man!

Archbishop Rowan Williams, while not being the most conservative, is actually not that bad. He did, after all, rebuke Bishop Spong’s denial of every major point of the Christian creeds. The real leadership of the Anglicans needs to be from Africa or Asia, though… not another Englishman.

is in no way meant to suggest that one is as great a burden as the other, but to jar the senses into seeing how unfair it is to ask people to do without what is naturally right for them to have.

There’s your problem. In the context of the Christian religion, people ultimately have no natural rights in the humanistic sense. It would be no more wrong to deny the priesthood to women, than it would be for God to strike you or me dead right now.

Am I offended greatly by the idea of women priests? Not as much as by practicing homosexual bishops, or “Bishop” Spong talking/writing about how empty the idea of God is or how useless prayer is, etc. However, I DO understand the rationale that Catholics and Orthodox have against the ordination of women to the priesthood- and it is much more justifiable in the context of religion than what modernists are bringing to the table.

 

[barb_finnegan]

I have a female cousin who married a Episcopalian in thr 1960s. My family and I attended the service in the big Episcopal church in my hometown.

I’ve gone to England many times, and visited the Anglican cathedrals-the majority of them were, of course, Catholic. I usually attended the choral service of Evensong. But on my first trip to London, myself and two traveling companions went to a morning ‘Holy Communion’ at an Anglican church where the poets Elizabeth Barrett and Robert Browning were married. My two companions went up to receive ‘communion’, but I did not.

And in the main church where my cousin got married, I’ve attended Evensong services and a ‘Lessons and Carols’ service at the beginning of Advent. No ‘sacraments’ were distributed-the services had Scripture readings, choral anthems and congregational hymns.

 

[Peter_J]

You are assuming that the gender composition of the Twelve (which we know only accidentally from the fact that all of them have clearly masculine names) was intended to be normative.

True. But isn’t it interesting that the Evangelists don’t agree on the 12 names, and yet they do all agree that the 12 Apostles were all men?

But the adoption of such a strained and illogical argument is one piece of evidence against the infallibility of your Magisterium.

So is it, for you, also a piece of evidence against the Undivided Church of the First Millennium?

I appreciate the fact that the Magisterium of our day does not embrace sexism and hence would have to allow women’s ordination if they did not take refuge in this novel and illogical view that men and women have equal but different natures.

That men and women have equal but different natures is a “novel and illogical view”?

 

[GKC]

Well, the Anglicans actually view themselves as “the Orthodox church of the West”… it just took a couple extra centuries to come to the same conclusions the East had. I don’t want to open that can of worms, but it’s not quite like “Wow, lets go be Episcopalian instead of Catholic to spite the Pope”. As much as traditional high church Anglicans agree with alot of Roman Catholic things… there are disagreements over ecclessiology, doctrines, even praxis (most Anglo-Catholics have no problems with married priests, and some of the practices are more Orthodox/Eastern than Roman, etc.).

In addition, many Anglo-Catholics are still somewhat latitudinal and Anglican. They aren’t even that against “Reformed” theology per se. “… in all things charity”. (and actually, most Anglicans, at least officially, don’t have the Roman Catholic idea of “proper matter” so much- what is proper Eucharistic matter is what passes for bread and wine. If a third-world country finds rice cakes to be available, that’s between them and God, even though “bread and wine” in the strict sense are prefered. Likewise, the wine doesn’t have to contain any alcohol).

Archbishop Rowan Williams, while not being the most conservative, is actually not that bad. He did, after all, rebuke Bishop Spong’s denial of every major point of the Christian creeds. The real leadership of the Anglicans needs to be from Africa or Asia, though… not another Englishman.

There’s your problem. In the context of the Christian religion, people ultimately have no natural rights in the humanistic sense. It would be no more wrong to deny the priesthood to women, than it would be for God to strike you or me dead right now.

Am I offended greatly by the idea of women priests? Not as much as by practicing homosexual bishops, or “Bishop” Spong talking/writing about how empty the idea of God is or how useless prayer is, etc. However, I DO understand the rationale that Catholics and Orthodox have against the ordination of women to the priesthood- and it is much more justifiable in the context of religion than what modernists are bringing to the table.

I note that you correctly make caveats as to “some” or “most”. There are Anglicans, and then there are Anglicans. Ditto for Anglo-Catholics.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Contarini]

True. But isn’t it interesting that the Evangelists don’t agree on the 12 names, and yet they do all agree that the 12 Apostles were all men?

I don’t see why it’s particularly “interesting” at all. Why wouldn’t they be?

So is it, for you, also a piece of evidence against the Undivided Church of the First Millennium?

No, because you don’t find this strained and illogical argument in the first millennium. You do find the argument that women can’t be ordained because the apostles were all men (the Father whom I remember definitely making this argument, Epiphanius, is one of the crankiest, least profound, and generally most unreliable of the Fathers–but I’m not claiming that the argument was confined to him), but it was rooted in a set of cultural assumptions which made the argument natural. If you think that men have a “ruling capacity” that women don’t, and you then notice that the Twelve were all men, it is quite natural to assume that Jesus chose men because of this “ruling capacity.” Since the modern Catholic Church does not share this assumption, it has to justify the inference that only men can be ordained on other grounds, and that’s where the argument breaks down. Without a set of cultural assumptions telling you why men are more suited to leadership than women, the fact that the Twelve were all men is no more than a piece of historical trivia.

Christians of the first millennium held to views of gender that Christians today generally have abandoned (this certainly includes the Pope). The accusation of departing from the first millennium applies both to those who take the official Catholic view and to those who support the ordination of women. But those of us who support the ordination of women are remaining faithful to the basic anthropological and Christological affirmations of the early Church, and reinterpreting ordination practice in the light of changing cultural attitudes. The official Catholic position, on the other hand, holds fast to the ordination practice of the historic Church, and invents new anthropological ideas (with serious consequences for Christology and soteriology) in order to justify that practice in the light of changing cultural attitudes.

That men and women have equal but different natures is a “novel and illogical view”?

Certainly. Where in the Tradition do you find it?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Well, the Anglicans actually view themselves as “the Orthodox church of the West”…

Some Anglicans.

it just took a couple extra centuries to come to the same conclusions the East had.

I’m not sure which centuries these would be. As late as the 17-18th centuries even high-church Anglicans were horrified by how close to “Romanism” the real Eastern Orthodox were.

In addition, many Anglo-Catholics are still somewhat latitudinal and Anglican. They aren’t even that against “Reformed” theology per se. “… in all things charity”.

Yes, the question (which I understand divides the Continuers as well as Episcopalian Anglo-Catholics) is whether Anglican “comprehension” is simply a disease of Anglicanism or something that actually has its virtues. I take the latter view, while rejecting the silly notion that our identity is simply described by latitudinarianism.

Archbishop Rowan Williams, while not being the most conservative, is actually not that bad. He did, after all, rebuke Bishop Spong’s denial of every major point of the Christian creeds. The real leadership of the Anglicans needs to be from Africa or Asia, though… not another Englishman.

I’m not sure why that would be the case. Canterbury remains our most ancient See and our link to the broader Catholic Church. There’s no way around that. Being English is not bad. African and Asian voices need to be heard–I think it would be great for Africans and Asians to become Archbishops of Canterbury–but if we care about our Catholic heritage, we owe some deference to Canterbury (even more to Rome, if it comes to that, but of course that’s a harder sell for Anglicans).

There’s your problem. In the context of the Christian religion, people ultimately have no natural rights in the humanistic sense. It would be no more wrong to deny the priesthood to women, than it would be for God to strike you or me dead right now.

People don’t have rights over against God, I agree. But at the same time, divine voluntarism amounts to demon worship. It’s a deadly heresy. God is not arbitrary–all His actions flow from His nature.

Edwin

 

[Daedelus76]

Some Anglicans.
Yes, the question (which I understand divides the Continuers as well as Episcopalian Anglo-Catholics) is whether Anglican “comprehension” is simply a disease of Anglicanism or something that actually has its virtues. I take the latter view, while rejecting the silly notion that our identity is simply described by latitudinarianism.

I know some Continuing priests or those who are connected with African bishops… and it’s not so much they don’t value comprehension, but they honestly feel that the Episcopalian leadership are comming up with entirely new teachings supopssedly from the “Holy Spirit” even though these teachings contradict Tradition and the Scriptures.

IMO, you should be allowed to attend Christian services and have a wide variety of private beliefs, the idea of the church as a hospital for sinners is important. You should not, however, necessarily be allowed to teach those beliefs- being a deacon, bishop, or priest is a privilege, not a right. The Continuing Anglicans I have gone to are actually welcomming of all sorts of Episcopalians and Anglicans, even those of a broad church orientation. All you have to do is be a baptized Christian to partake of the Eucharist, though they prefer you believe in a real presence, this isn’t defined as a dogmatic requirement.

I’m not sure why that would be the case. Canterbury remains our most ancient See and our link to the broader Catholic Church. There’s no way around that. Being English is not bad. African and Asian voices need to be heard–I think it would be great for Africans and Asians to become Archbishops of Canterbury–but if we care about our Catholic heritage, we owe some deference to Canterbury (even more to Rome, if it comes to that, but of course that’s a harder sell for Anglicans).

I’m not suggesting abandoning the See of Canterburry, but I see nothing wrong with making an African or Asian bishop the Archbishop there. The center of gravity is already there in the Global South in Anglicanism, and they take the religion much more seriously, it is not just a weekend hobby which frankly seems to be the attitude of many Episcopalians, and some of the English.

The Episcopalians, OTOH, are the ones acting autonomous and irresponsible, no longer really desiring communion in the proper sense with the wider Anglican world, but holding the purse strings as a kind of blackmail, and engaging in such “Christ-like” activities as lawsuits and innuendo.

 

[cothrige]

Not an argument that will pull any weight with a non-Catholic, especially one (such as myself) for whom the sheer illogic of the current Catholic position on women’s ordination is one strong argument against the infallibility of the Magisterium.

How can one say that “illogic” regarding equal rights is a strong argument against infallibility? Frankly, I know of nothing particularly logical about Christianity. A virgin getting pregnant? Absurd. God becoming a man? Ridiculous. Just think about that one. God is God, and can save us without a word, but instead he sends his son (which he illogically has without even having a body, btw) to die as a person. Outrageous. And don’t get me started on how God can be one God and three persons. That one quite simply refutes itself. How could a reasonable and intelligent person, which you obviously are, accept the ridiculously illogical teaching of the Trinity or the incarnation or any of the rest of this, but then find it simply impossible to accept the position taken on women in the priesthood?

 

[Contarini]

I know some Continuing priests or those who are connected with African bishops… and it’s not so much they don’t value comprehension, but they honestly feel that the Episcopalian leadership are comming up with entirely new teachings supopssedly from the “Holy Spirit” even though these teachings contradict Tradition and the Scriptures.

That was my point about the question dividing the Continuers. The ACC website used to have an article by Bishop Mark Haverland saying that the historic policy of comprehension is the root of the problems in Anglicanism, and that Continuing Anglicanism had a chance to break with this and establish a solidly Catholic church. Bishop +Haverland, now Archbishop, expresses similar thoughts in his response to GAFCON. Yet I know that other Continuing Anglicans think differently. I’m not talking about just liberal/conservative divisions, but the traditional high/low division.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

How can one say that “illogic” regarding equal rights is a strong argument against infallibility?

Because Catholicism (in contrast to some versions, or perversions, of Christianity) has always claimed to be in accord with reason.

Frankly, I know of nothing particularly logical about Christianity.

Perhaps you need to become more deeply acquainted with the Christian theological tradition. I would suggest that you start with St. Thomas Aquinas.

A virgin getting pregnant? Absurd.

Nothing illogical here. Do you actually know what the word “illogical” means? Biological mechanisms have nothing to do with logic. What would be illogical would be the claim Mary both had sexual intercourse and did not. The claim that she conceived by a biologically unusual method is in no way illogical.

God becoming a man? Ridiculous. Just think about that one.

Christian theologians have thought a great deal about it. And they have thought so much about it precisely because of their commitment to both faith and reason. Abandon the commitment to reason, and you make Christian theology unnecessary. An odd position for a Catholic to take. Are you sure you aren’t really a famous French thief in disguise?

God is God, and can save us without a word, but instead he sends his son

Again, the question of why God doesn’t just save us by fiat is one of the basic subjects of Christian theology. Christian theologians such as Athanasius and Anselm have pursued this question precisely because they believed it had a logical answer.

(which he illogically has without even having a body, btw)

You cannot possibly be so ignorant as to think that Christians believe Jesus to be eternally begotten of the Father in a sense that requires a body. You simply aren’t thinking very carefully. You are confusing “startling and paradoxical” with “illogical.”

And don’t get me started on how God can be one God and three persons. That one quite simply refutes itself.

No. It doesn’t. To say that God was one and three in the same sense would refute itself. But no one says that. And surely you must be aware of this–so why are you wasting everyone’s time?

How could a reasonable and intelligent person, which you obviously are, accept the ridiculously illogical teaching of the Trinity or the incarnation or any of the rest of this, but then find it simply impossible to accept the position taken on women in the priesthood?

I don’t find it impossible. Very few things are impossible. I have serious objections. And these objections stem from the same conviction of the rationality of Christian faith that has driven Christian theology for 2000 years. Your cavalier treatment of this question does not do you or the position you are defending any credit.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

That was my point about the question dividing the Continuers. The ACC website used to have an article by Bishop Mark Haverland saying that the historic policy of comprehension is the root of the problems in Anglicanism, and that Continuing Anglicanism had a chance to break with this and establish a solidly Catholic church. Bishop +Haverland, now Archbishop, expresses similar thoughts in his response to GAFCON. Yet I know that other Continuing Anglicans think differently. I’m not talking about just liberal/conservative divisions, but the traditional high/low division.

Edwin

I know some who agree with +Haverland, in principle.

GKC

 

[jay29]

He did choose women. You’re asking why women weren’t among the Twelve.

BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN disciples and Apostles.

And I don’t know, because I don’t know the basis on which He chose the Twelve.

That’s a reason enough not to go against His example don’t you think? The Apostles didn’t change it and neither did the Church for 2,000 years. What makes you think you can change His example after all these centuries have past? Just because of mere equality?

You are assuming that the gender composition of the Twelve (which we know only accidentally from the fact that all of them have clearly masculine names) was intended to be normative. You have not yet presented any argument to show this. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

How can you say otherwise? Why would you take the risk of changing something the Lord’s example has started and that has not been backed up by any sort of Sacred Tradition??? The burden of proof is not on me. The burden of proof is on you to show me the example of the Lord’s, the Apostle’s, and the entire Church GOT IT WRONG.

No, the authoritative teaching of your Magisterium is all you need. But the adoption of such a strained and illogical argument is one piece of evidence against the infallibility of your Magisterium.

Says who? Sacred Tradition? The example of the Lord and the Apostles?

Explain the HOLY TRINITY, three PERSONS, one God and have it sound logical to a non-Christian. It doesn’t make sense to their reasoning, but human reason does not make something not true and illogical.

There is nothing in the Gospels to indicate that the maleness of the Twelve was significant or normative.

The Lord’s own example is good enough and the simple fact that the Apostle’s spoke and acted for Christ in terms of faith and morals, they too cannot be wrong in their choices or examples either.

They were all Jews too, but that doesn’t mean that Gentiles can’t be ordained.

Until they were baptized, then they became Christians. They were Christians at the Last Supper when the Lord instituted the Holy Priesthood on them.

You’re muddying the waters by introducing another “hot-button” issue. If you want to argue against women’s ordination based on the texts from St. Paul (whether from the undisputed or disputed writings), then that’s another issue. That’s not the argument you are making here, so your parallel is irrelevant.

The canon of the Catholic Church is totally inspired. No, women cannot teach men and be priests. I was using this parallel to prove that Jesus does not have to save something explicitly to bring forth a truth. His examples, without words, are good enough. Hence Jesus never lifted the total ban on homosexual acts. I don’t see where the Anglican/Episcopal Church has any Authority to do it.

Right. Jesus took on human nature. If he took only a “male” human nature then women could not be saved. In fact, there is no authority in Sacred Tradition for the idea that there is a “male” human nature. The Christian theologians in the Tradition who rejected women’s ordination clearly were shaped by assumptions about gender that Catholics generally no longer hold (at least the Pope clearly doesn’t, and most Catholics in the Western world don’t).

Women were never called to be priests and only the Catholic Church has the right to call priests and confer Holy Orders. No one has a right to be a priest. Your ecclesial community left the church so I suppose you can walk all over 2,000 years of Christian history.

When did I say anything about that? You are inventing this “argument” in order to make my position seem petty. But the invention is yours, so the pettiness is yours.

Your argument is that men and women are equal, except the “plumbing”, so therefore everything should be equal. Wrong. A 2,000 year example is pretty hard to go against. You are saying the 2,000 old Catholic Church is wrong. It can’t be.

In fact, the Virgin Mary was never a priest and could never consecrate the bread and wine and neither could the angels in heaven for that matter. Only a human male priest can with PROPER Holy Orders.

Jesus never chose anyone to be priests.

Who do you think conferred Holy Orders in the Acts then? The Apostles, who were actually BISHOPS because they have the fullness of the priesthood and can ordain.

Not an argument that will pull any weight with a non-Catholic, especially one (such as myself) for whom the sheer illogic of the current Catholic position on women’s ordination is one strong argument against the infallibility of the Magisterium.

Just because it doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean it is not true. The Lord’s example and the Apostles are good enough. You are letting your humanity get in the way of the true faith.

 

[Contarini]

BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN disciples and Apostles.

The argument as I understand it rests on Jesus’ choosing the Twelve. If you have another argument, I have imperfectly understood it.

That’s a reason enough not to go against His example don’t you think?

Not at all. We “go against” His example all the time. No one, not even the Anabaptists who come closest, seriously thinks that we should imitate everything Jesus did exactly.

Pretty much all Christians routinely disregard (or at least don’t take literally) things Jesus actually commanded, like giving away all our possessions. It seems the height of hypocrisy to make such a big issue out of an “example” that we only know about incidentally (nowhere do the Gospels themselves indicate that the maleness of the Twelve was important). There’s clearly more going on here than a literal “following Jesus’ example.” And we need to ask what this “more” is.

The Apostles didn’t change it and neither did the Church for 2,000 years. What makes you think we can change His example after all these centuries have past?

The fact that His example obviously was never the main reason. If someone can offer a solid theological basis for the male-only priesthood, then certainly Jesus’ example is a reason to see this as a serious issue (in other words, we could then see the choosing of twelve men as theologically significant). But in the absence of such a basis, there’s no particular reason to think that the choosing of twelve men was intended to be normative.

If you really want to make this normative, why have you departed from Jesus’ example by having more than twelve bishops? (I could take you to task for having more than twelve priests–if the gender of the Twelve is significant for priests, then why not the number? But I’ll let you off, because I’m a generous person.) There is a lot more indication in the Gospels that the number twelve was significant than that the gender of the Twelve was. Go talk to the Mormons–they think they are more apostolic than you are because they have a governing body of twelve and you don’t. On your principles, it would seem hard to show that they are wrong.

Just because of mere equality?

There is nothing “mere” about the affirmation that all humans are created in God’s image and thus share the same nature, or that the Second Person of the Trinity assumed in the Incarnation the common human nature shared by all of us. These are some of the most basic claims of the Christian Faith. You very much want to reduce this to a question of power. But it isn’t. It’s about the basics of Christian theology.

How can you say otherwise? Why would you take the risk of changing something the Lord’s example has started and has not been backed up by any sort of Sacred Tradition???

There is a difference between theological debate and ecclesial practice. (This is what ++Rowan Williams understands so well in the case of homosexuality, which has confused many people.) If I were an Anglican before the ordination of women, I would be extremely cautious about pushing for or even approving of change. As it stands, I think that we need to be entirely tolerant of those Anglicans who do not accept the ordination of women, however uncomfortable that makes feminists within the Communion. This is precisely because I take the authority of Sacred Tradition (and the possibility, however remote, that Jesus did intend the gender of the Twelve to be normative) extremely seriously. I agree substantially with Archbishop Kallistos Ware’s position (at least the last position I know of him taking–his position has changed somewhat over the years and may have changed further): there doesn’t seem to be a good theological reason not to ordain women, but one should change traditional practice with extreme caution.

Since the ordination of women has already occurred and is accepted in my particular corner of the Christian world, I support it wholeheartedly. But I recognize that we are, in a sense, an experiment, and our particular part of the experiment (in the Episcopal Church) isn’t going very well. It may be that it will eventually become clear that the ordination of women is heretical. But this will happen because questions like the ones I’m asking are taken seriously. Simply slapping them down by appeals to authority, or worse by the embrace of irrational fideism such as that of “cothrige,” doesn’t do the Church any favors.

When I spoke of the burden of proof, I wasn’t talking about the practical change or the general theological argument. Of course we need to shoulder the burden of proof there, and we have. Proponents of women’s ordination have a strong theological argument, which I have outlined, based on the doctrine of the Incarnation and the traditional Christian teaching that there is one human nature. To this you oppose the alleged authority of Christ’s “example,” but you have no evidence that this was intended as an example. That’s the point at which the burden of proof lies on you.

 

[Contarini]

The burden of proof is not on me. The burden of proof is on you to show me the example of the Lord’s

Again, that’s where the burden of proof is on you, because you can’t show that it was intended to be exemplary.

the Apostle’s, and the entire Church GOT IT WRONG.

Clearly the Pope and most Catholic bishops and theologians agree that Christians of the past got a lot of things wrong about gender. So your rhetoric is empty here. The terrible thing you fear has already happened. It’s a done deal, unless you can mount some sort of traditionalist takeover and have JPII and Pope Benedict relegated to the history books as liberal dissenters, which seems unlikely at this point.

The question is why, given the abandonment of traditional cultural beliefs about the defective way in which women instantiate human nature, you should invent a completely different understanding of human nature in order to support the practice which the traditional belief (which you have abandoned) once supported.

xplain the HOLY TRINITY, three PERSONS, one God and have it sound logical to a non-Christian.

I’m not asking you to make your position sound logical to a non-Christian. I’m appealing to the basic truths of the faith to which we both adhere, and I’m challenging you to show how the claim that women are ontologically incapable of being ordained can possibly be reconciled with these truths.

It doesn’t make sense to their reasoning, but human reason does not make something not true and illogical.

As I said to cothrige, the entire enterprise of Catholic theology for 2000 years has been dedicated to making sense out of the Christian faith. I’m just challenging you to continue that enterprise by showing how the Catholic Church’s position relates to basic Christian affirmations about human nature and the Incarnation.

Until they were baptized, then they became Christians. They were Christians at the Last Supper when the Lord instituted the Holy Priesthood on them.

If you mean by this that they were not Jews and did not think of themselves as Jews, then this is clearly nonsense. Being a “Jew” and being a “Christian” was not mutually incompatible at this point.

The canon of the Catholic Church is totally inspired. No, women cannot teach men

Well, you can take this up with Mother Angelica!

and be priests. I was using this parallel to prove that Jesus does not have to save something explicitly to bring forth a truth. His examples, without words, are good enough. Hence Jesus never lifted the total ban on homosexual acts.

This doesn’t make any sense. The view that homosexual acts are unnatural is not supported from Jesus’ words or example. It has other support. So does the view that women should not be priests (I say this although I agree with the former and disagree with the latter). But you’re trying to make the case against the ordination of women on the basis of Jesus’ example. It’s irrelevant to say “some things are true even though Jesus didn’t explicitly address them.” Or rather it’s not irrelevant–it’s tacitly giving up the fight on the point at issue, which is whether Jesus did address the question of female priesthood by chosing twelve men.

Your argument is that men and women are equal, except the “plumbing”, so therefore everything should be equal.

Perhaps you should address the argument I’m actually making, and not the argument you would like me to make so you can dismiss it easily.

I am making the argument that men and women share one common nature, made in God’s image, and that Jesus Christ shares that nature. Therefore, it is theologically erroneous and destructive to claim that women (who share the nature Christ assumed) are ontologically incapable of acting in persona Christi.

Your repeated invocations of authority demonstrate that you don’t have a good answer to this argument. You don’t want to talk about it.

Edwin