Episcopalian/ Anglican services

[Contarini]

One other note: I shouldn’t have said that “Jesus never ordained priests.” I was responding to what seems to me an inappropriate appeal to New Testament literalism on behalf of a theology that isn’t literally found in the Gospel narrative. I should have said “the Gospels do not say that Jesus ordained anyone as a priest.” I am not challenging the claim that the Apostles are the source for the authority of bishops (Irenaeus and other early Christians didn’t actually say that they were bishops) and hence of priests–and in 1 Peter St. Peter does refer to himself as a presbyter. The point I was making was that a literal appeal to Jesus’ example as found in the New Testament doesn’t support your case. To argue that the Apostles were priests in the first place, you need a fuller theology of ordination stemming from Sacred Tradition. And that is inseparable from the theological affirmations about creation and Incarnation found in that same Sacred Tradition. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be an Anabaptist-style NT literalist when it suits you, but underlying this alleged “following Jesus’ example” is a rich theology whose implications you are trying to avoid.

Edwin

 

[jay29]

No time to reply right now. However, you must assert that the Orthodox Church is wrong also in not ordaining women. How can the two only Apostolic Churches of the first 1,000 years are wrong? How does that work?

 

[GKC]

“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.”

It’s because of things like this that I don’t pursue you with jeers, dead cats and popular catch phrases.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

“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.”

It’s because of things like this that I don’t pursue you with jeers, dead cats and popular catch phrases.

And because you are a gentleman who tries not to answer fools according to their folly

Edwin

 

[GKC]

And because you are a gentleman who tries not to answer fools according to their folly

Edwin

My blushes, Your Eminence.

GKC

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You are off topic. I was not interpreting scripture when this original part of the conversation came up. I was rejecting your position about what scripture is. You say one verse is from Paul, according to experts, and another is not, according to same, and that means the former is true and the latter is not. I reject this unchristian idea of what scripture is. The original comment I responded to was therefore regarding the definition of scripture, and how scripture gets to be scripture. It had nothing to do with interpreting the actual words. Therefore, again, you are off topic.

This is a problem over and over with you. You say something. I respond. You then respond to me as if my response were to a completely different topic. If you are having a hard time following the thread of the conversation, by all means go back and read again what is being discussed.

There are “liberal” Catholics (RC is a remote control, btw) but they are not the issue. I make no claim of even being a “conservative” Catholic. Catholic doctrine is very easy to find. It is in the Catechism, the concilar documents, and papal writings of varying levels of authority. Anything not in these, or contrary to these, is not Catholic doctrine. Whether a person is corrected or not is due to many administrative reasons, but having not been corrected doesn’t make one right.

See, you have lost your place again. You accused me of idolatry. Do you understand that? You said I was an idolator. I didn’t say that about you. You did about me. I responded to your accusation (are you still with me?) by pointing out that if I am an idolator for following the teaching of the Church then you are the same for following the teaching of the “experts.” Do you understand this simple point? Are you entirely lost? Please read before posting.

You are embarrassing yourself. Please read before posting. Let us look at what a hypocrite you are by suggesting that I am taking the cheap shot. Let me preface this by saying that I am honestly beginning to dislike you. You are a very unpleasant person.

First, you said that historians disagree a lot, which I wouldn’t know because I don’t read them. Do you see the cheap shot? The insult? Now, did I respond with a cheap shot of my own? No, I made a joke at my own expense. It is called self-deprecation. I responded to the effect that maybe I do read them, if perhaps they post their findings in TeenBeat magazine. Did I insult your experts? No, I insulted myself by suggesting that my reading list includes the very high-brow journal TeenBeat. If you are going to argue about cheap shots perhaps you should stop making them. And read what is being discussed before posting. I am getting tired of trying to go back six posts to show you how off-topic you are about what is being discussed.

Then read the posts.

Thanks be to God you don’t do that.

Oh please. Get real. You do nothing else. If I tell you that Episcopalians are worshipping the devil I am stating my position. I cannot then say I read it in a book and so I am not saying it. I did say it! You cannot post an opinion as being true, and then say it isn’t your opinion. When you say that scripture A is erroneous because it isn’t written by apostle B, you are defining what scripture is. The experts you read are not posting here, you are. It is your definition, based on their expert opinion perhaps, but still yours. Quit playing stupid semantic games.

Since you are honestly beginning to dislike me…actually your making it quite clear you do, and that I am a '“very unpleasant person” I shall cease this conversation. Every response is now peppered with insults and I don’t need to receive them, and certainly I don’t wish to participate in your uncharitable efforts in giving them. blessings to you. I have no doubt you seek truth as do I.

 

[Daedelus76]

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.

That actually seems like a good argument. Actually, I myself think that women can act in the priest role (especially since I take a different view than some Roman Catholics - I don’t see religion so mechanisticly/juridically). However, wheather they should or not is another issue altogether. It may be the effects of ordination are too subtle to discern with the rational intellect. (while I’d argee that men and women share a human nature, I also think men and women are distinct in many ways, though. At the same time, I’d hate to pin down just what that difference is, and how “real” it is).

The problem: the feminists who support womens ordination, usually treat Tradition very lightly, as if it is merely some kind of misogynistic convention. They never make an argument like what you are talking about, though they do use extermely humanistic thinking and innuendo about the suppossed “primitiveness” of the Fathers and those who wrote the Scriptures, and how much more knowledgeable we are today. This kind of language has no place in the Christian church. Yet I’ve heard “Christian feminists” use it. It’s spiritual poison. I’m not talking in the sense of pew-warming weekenders, who probably wouldn’t notice the difference anyways- I’m talking about being a saint, the qualities that require reverence, humility (including intellectual humility), and obedience. I don’t think it’s a coincidence alot of the liberal Protestant denominations have lost numbers- people aren’t stupid or blind, they know hollow religion when they see it.

I would also never agree with the idea that women should never teach men. I think that’s taking a Bible verse way out of context. We don’t even know the full context. The Epistles are like reading half a telephone conversation in many cases. Instead, we have to look at Tradition to fill in many things, and the tradition seems to be- women can teach men, at least in some ways. Nevertheless, the men-only priesthood is traditional and I’m wary about ordaining women.

 

[cothrige]

Nothing illogical here. Do you actually know what the word “illogical” means?..

You meant to be precise in your use of logic regarding this? I really had no idea. I naturally assumed you were being free with your use of the word, as is so common on these boards, and so used it in kind. I apologise for the resulting imprecision. However, I don’t think you can blame me for considering that an argument of illogic against a revealed truth regarding the priesthood was not meant precisely. Whether a priesthood is coed or not hardly seems a matter in which illogic can be argued.

Your cavalier treatment of this question does not do you or the position you are defending any credit.

Well, I apologise for appearing cavalier. And I will admit it was a rather cavalier post. But, since your offhand comment seemed no more seriously constructed, I hadn’t predicted I would cause offense. And as cavalier as I may seem I would still be interested in how you construct a charge of illogic in regards to this revealed truth of the Catholic faith. If you would be willing to share it I would love to learn more about what you mean.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That actually seems like a good argument. Actually, I myself think that women can act in the priest role (especially since I take a different view than some Roman Catholics - I don’t see religion so mechanisticly/juridically). However, wheather they should or not is another issue altogether. It may be the effects of ordination are too subtle to discern with the rational intellect. (while I’d argee that men and women share a human nature, I also think men and women are distinct in many ways, though. At the same time, I’d hate to pin down just what that difference is, and how “real” it is).

The problem: the feminists who support womens ordination, usually treat Tradition very lightly, as if it is merely some kind of misogynistic convention. They never make an argument like what you are talking about, though they do use extermely humanistic thinking and innuendo about the suppossed “primitiveness” of the Fathers and those who wrote the Scriptures, and how much more knowledgeable we are today. This kind of language has no place in the Christian church. Yet I’ve heard “Christian feminists” use it. It’s spiritual poison. I’m not talking in the sense of pew-warming weekenders, who probably wouldn’t notice the difference anyways- I’m talking about being a saint, the qualities that require reverence, humility (including intellectual humility), and obedience. I don’t think it’s a coincidence alot of the liberal Protestant denominations have lost numbers- people aren’t stupid or blind, they know hollow religion when they see it.

I would also never agree with the idea that women should never teach men. I think that’s taking a Bible verse way out of context. We don’t even know the full context. The Epistles are like reading half a telephone conversation in many cases. Instead, we have to look at Tradition to fill in many things, and the tradition seems to be- women can teach men, at least in some ways. Nevertheless, the men-only priesthood is traditional and I’m wary about ordaining women.

I’d be interested in what you think may be the reasons why they are able but perhaps still shouldn’t?

You seem to be saying that there are those who think it wrong for women be priests, which you intellectually disagree with, but you find there may be other reasons why it should still be so? Am I getting you right?

And then you say, that whatever arguments are made for women’s ordination are those made by men, because women give all bad reasons? Reasons that what? attack men too much? Again, please correct me if I’m reading wrong. I’ve been accused of being unskilled in reading as you know.

Why do you think women are the main vehicle behind not placing undo emphasis on tradition? I’m not saying I agree, just asking your opinion. Did not Jesus constantly question tradition? I mean he was the one who healed on the sabbath and had that whole discussion about unclear food and questioned the pharisees a lot about form over substance? He didn’t seem to have much relish for tradition.

Some that I know, alas both men and women suggest that tradition is a good thing, but should be examined regularly to test whether the reasons for it in the first place still make sense. If not, they should be discarded as no longer serving the purpose for which they were intended. Do you disagree with this? Certainly I expect Roman Catholics would, since it seems the entire basis for their position on women’s ordination (at least I was told this by a priest who received a letter and the statement when it came out during JPII’s papacy.) I have always understood that the Vatican does not find the Bible to inhibit women’s ordination, but rests its decision solely on tradition. Of course that is sort of like a self-fullfilling prophesy, I guess.

 

[cothrige]

Since you are honestly beginning to dislike me…actually your making it quite clear you do, and that I am a '“very unpleasant person” I shall cease this conversation. Every response is now peppered with insults and I don’t need to receive them, and certainly I don’t wish to participate in your uncharitable efforts in giving them. blessings to you. I have no doubt you seek truth as do I.

SpiritMeadow,

I am perfectly comfortable with that. However, I do not wish to leave you with the wrong impression or with an unhealthy or unproductive idea of our conversation. You here accuse my posts of being “peppered with insults” and if so then I must apologise. I should not post in that manner. If I do it is unchristian and unworthy of the board. I apologise. However, from the beginning of our exchange you were a very hateful and insulting person, repeatedly suggesting that I do not read or use my mind. You habitually “peppered” your posts with suggestions that I was incapable of using reason or intelligence in my thoughts. That is frankly why I find you unpleasant and hard to like. If you post something I would like to respond to in the future I will honestly try to be civil. But, I do wish you could try to do the same.

 

[jay29]

The obvious:

1.) The 2,000 year old Catholic Church is different from the 500 year old Anglican/Episcopal ecclesial community.
2.) The Catholic Priesthood is not the same as the Anglican/Episcopal priesthood.
3.) We are actually talking about apples and oranges here.

“Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church (which NT Scripture originates-Jay29) and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).----Pope John Paul II,1994.

The Catholic Church has no power to ordain women as priests. The case is closed.

http://cache.gettyimages.com/xc/713...DCB1DD8387ABB48346906878016DEA40A659CEC4C8CB6

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow,

I am perfectly comfortable with that. However, I do not wish to leave you with the wrong impression or with an unhealthy or unproductive idea of our conversation. You here accuse my posts of being “peppered with insults” and if so then I must apologise. I should not post in that manner. If I do it is unchristian and unworthy of the board. I apologise. However, from the beginning of our exchange you were a very hateful and insulting person, repeatedly suggesting that I do not read or use my mind. You habitually “peppered” your posts with suggestions that I was incapable of using reason or intelligence in my thoughts. That is frankly why I find you unpleasant and hard to like. If you post something I would like to respond to in the future I will honestly try to be civil. But, I do wish you could try to do the same.

I will accept your remarks in the manner offered, but I do think it was both ways from the start. You called my arguments absurd and expressed that they were ridiculous, suggesting you had never heard of such things. That suggests that you don’t read the literature from an exegetical point of view. Many don’t and that is perfectly fine. Many have no interest in anything but pastoral reflections on scripture. I find it impossible to believe that if you do read in the area that you have never heard these things since they have been around for many decades, if not mroe than a hundred years. Again, to suggest you don’t agree with them is perfectly fine.

I did not find you a “hateful and insulting person” from the start, but found you to deteriorate as I failed to admit defeat to your answers. You got harsher as time went on, yet I don’t categorize it as hateful in any manner. I have managed to have some nice conversations with many here, many Catholics, but obviously I still have much to do if you found me so foul from the very start. My deepest apologies and I shall beg the good Lord to give me a better temperment as I continue to speak the truth that I believe worth exploring.

 

[Daedelus76]

I’d be interested in what you think may be the reasons why they are able but perhaps still shouldn’t?

Not everything requires a specific “reason” like that. Certainly I couldn’t explain it is just a few sentences.

You seem to be saying that there are those who think it wrong for women be priests, which you intellectually disagree with, but you find there may be other reasons why it should still be so? Am I getting you right?

I don’t think the prohibition on women priests can be grounded in Scriptures as much as some would claim. Paul’s alleged prohibition on women speaking is less relevent to the role of women in the church, overall. I think there’s nothing wrong with a woman preaching, teaching, or having charismatic gifts. However, that’s not the same thing as being a priest.

And then you say, that whatever arguments are made for women’s ordination are those made by men, because women give all bad reasons? Reasons that what? attack men too much? Again, please correct me if I’m reading wrong. I’ve been accused of being unskilled in reading as you know.

Pro-ordination arguments are invariably humanistic, and they don’t respect Tradition. That’s what I said. I want to hear more arguments that take the Tradition seriously before I decide. We also have experience- churches that embrace holy orders for women just don’t seem to fair as well. Is this merely coincidence? Mainline Protestant denominations, most of which embraced women’s ordination, are dying. Even in non-Christian religions, priesthood has been a male thing moreso. Is this purely coincidence? I really, really doubt this. You can’t take womens ordination completely away from the mentality that surrounds it, it’s like an “ultra-therapeutic” view of faith. While I am more into a therapeutic understanding of Christianity, I’m not that extreme. It’s also combined with a strong sense of rational justification and demystification (as are most modernist deconstructionist movements, beyond Feminism), when like has been said before, Christianity is filled with mysteries, things that might seem rationally contradictory but we are suppossed to believe them. This rejection of mystery is where you get rejection of the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the whole enchilada. It’s incredibly arrogant to assume anything about the priesthood, beyond what has been presented by the Scriptures and Tradition.

Maybe there is a way that women can participate more in a religious life, and not have a conflict with Tradition? That is sort of what Bishop Kallistos Ware was talking about. He’s actually open to changing some things, such as the prohibition in some Orthodox churches that girl babies cannot enter the sanctuary when they are presented. These are things to think seriously about. But we can’t use a purely modernist yardstick to judge these things, and it’s better to be cautious.

Why do you think women are the main vehicle behind not placing undo emphasis on tradition? I’m not saying I agree, just asking your opinion. Did not Jesus constantly question tradition? I mean he was the one who healed on the sabbath and had that whole discussion about unclear food and questioned the pharisees a lot about form over substance? He didn’t seem to have much relish for tradition.

I think traditions are much more a human thing (they benefit us more than they could ever possibly benefit God), but I wouldn’t say they are purely human. Jesus didn’t go out arbitrarily turning over the Law, either.

 

[TAB39]

The obvious:

1.) The 2,000 year old Catholic Church is different from the 500 year old Anglican/Episcopal ecclesial community.
2.) The Catholic Priesthood is not the same as the Anglican/Episcopal priesthood.
3.) We are actually talking about apples and oranges here.

Like we didn’t already know this. Are you a child?

 

[jay29]

Like we didn’t already know this. Are you a child?

I guess you missed this part: “The obvious”… Are you Catholic?

Read more, post less.

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/6271/jackelnlundsbiskopvign1hg2.jpg

 

[TAB39]

I guess you missed this part: “The obvious”…

What I was quoting from you was extremely obvious.

 

[pipper]

I’m just thinking out loud a little’ but I really wonder.

With the graying of our Catholic priests.

And the growing problem of parishes closing and being consolidated due to a lack of priests.

And the growing problem of priestless parishes.

Could it be possible someday for the Vatican and Magisterium to approach the refusal to ordain women to the priesthood or diaconate?

I mean what can the church do under current circumstances?

Will we allow priestless parishes continue to multiply?

Use even more Eucharistic Ministers to distribute Holy Communion and deprive the laity of the Holy Sacrifice?

Pray and hope for more vocations, and wait for the results, that has not worked so far.

I feel with the growing debate between ourselves and the Episcopalians/anglicans, this issue haas gone unmentioned.

And I feel that we Roman Caatholics need to discuss this.

 

[cothrige]

I will accept your remarks in the manner offered, but I do think it was both ways from the start. You called my arguments absurd and expressed that they were ridiculous, suggesting you had never heard of such things.

I definitely think I read more from a “within the Church” attitude than you do, and therefore my reading list is likely much, much more selective than your own. Not to insinuate that it is better or of a higher quality, these being subjective, but merely less comprehensive in quantity and point of view. Because of this I have to admit that your actual argument is entirely new to me. I have honestly not found someone who took the view of scripture that you do.

With that said, I apologise for my choice of words. If I say your position is absurd I did not mean that as a personal judgment of yourself. I only mean that your point of view, as I see it, is entirely untenable and self refuting. I assume that such a statement will be seen as critical of the theory rather than something meant to be insulting, but seeing that I am wrong about that I certainly am sorry for the choice. I will try to learn from this and restrain my choice of words in the future.

That suggests that you don’t read the literature from an exegetical point of view. Many don’t and that is perfectly fine. Many have no interest in anything but pastoral reflections on scripture.

I do not know what you may mean as exegetical vs. pastoral. I understand exegesis to mean an explanation of the text of scripture. I believe scripture itself to be pastoral, meaning for the care of souls, and any understanding of it which is reflective of its purpose and intent is going to be pastoral. As I view it a reading of scripture which is entirely critical in nature, meaning that it presupposes human origins and human authors, is of no value to a believer. It denies the meaning and purposes of the scripture as produced by the authors. A reader can be critical, considering the history, location, methods and the intended purpose of the author, but to have any real value it must still be with an understanding of the entire scripture which all shares God as its author and without a denial of its divine origins.

I find it impossible to believe that if you do read in the area that you have never heard these things since they have been around for many decades, if not mroe than a hundred years. Again, to suggest you don’t agree with them is perfectly fine.

No, I wouldn’t agree with your understanding of scripture as I have understood it. It appears to be grounded in a view which sees the work as other than divine and is very skeptical. While you may be a spiritual person such an understanding is ultimately biased and disallows any real comprehensive understanding of the Bible as it relates to the faith. The Bible is sacred, and if the reader does not have that in mind they will only be able to learn from it as a moral guidebook, and more than likely a poor one. Seen this way the mind will naturally begin to accept as errors what would otherwise be certain and then the faith is not guiding the believer, but the believer is guiding the faith. This kind of relativism, natural to the human mind, is not however healthy to faith. It robs it of its value and turns it into a system of defending our sins rather than correcting them. The exhortations can be turned against themselves and the sin becomes grace and the grace becomes sin.

I did not find you a “hateful and insulting person” from the start, but found you to deteriorate as I failed to admit defeat to your answers.

If I may comment on this, I promise you that not admitting defeat is not upsetting to me. I never expected you to at all, and in my particular case nobody ever has yet. I know many people who I speak with online very comfortably who disagree with me quite passionately. I have had very nice discussions with Muslims, Protestants, Mormons and atheists, and they all disagreed with me in the most definitive ways. What upset me was the tone and what I saw as intentional insults, and I admit I responded heatedly. I am sorry for that, because regardless of how I received your words I should not have written in anger. I found your tone very condescending and insulting, and that is why I became less friendly as well. But, again, I am sorry for having done that.

You got harsher as time went on, yet I don’t categorize it as hateful in any manner. I have managed to have some nice conversations with many here, many Catholics, but obviously I still have much to do if you found me so foul from the very start. My deepest apologies and I shall beg the good Lord to give me a better temperment as I continue to speak the truth that I believe worth exploring.

I very much appreciate that, and I hope you will consider forgiving my hurtful words as well. I have given in to my worse nature, and for that I apologise. I certainly will try to restrain myself, and in the future I will give the benefit of the doubt concerning anything which I may think is implied. Clearly you had not intended to insult, and so the fault is entirely mine.

 

[cothrige]

Could it be possible someday for the Vatican and Magisterium to approach the refusal to ordain women to the priesthood or diaconate?

I personally think we should cure the disease rather than trying to treat symptoms with experiments. Our priestly vocations have suffered, in my opinion, because of heteropraxy and heterodoxy. Strong orthodox and traditional dioceses generally have strong vocations, but the rest suffer. Just think about yourself. If you were going to consider conversion or a call to a vocation of some kind, what would encourage that? Strong traditional values in faith and liturgy, or wishy-washy doubting relativism? Who is going to volunteer their life for relativism? We cannot be afraid of being thoroughly and shamelessly Catholic, and if we do that people will begin to be able to discern the Lord’s call to orders.

That is my take on it anyway.

 

[Peter_J]

Contarini,

This may sound irrelevant, but I would like to ask you: Do you believe that western Christians were justified in inserting the filioque into the Creed?