“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.
No. And I think I do see where you’re going with this, and I see the force of the argument. I want to reiterate that I’m a lot more confident criticizing the theological justifications offered for the male-only priesthood than I am pushing for change. As an Episcopalian, I don’t have to, anyway! And perhaps it’s necessary for some churches to charge ahead so that the whole Church can discern the mind of the Spirit (even if it’s through watching us implode!). My point is simply that whatever the ultimate result, it needs a theological basis. Simply repeating “Jesus didn’t choose any women to be among the Twelve” is insufficient, and radically revising the Tradition by coming up with a two-natures theory of humanity is a cure that is surely far worse than the disease.
Hi Pipper,
I don’t see that women’s ordination is relevant here. The question has to be solved on theological grounds. If women are really incapable of being ordained, then they can’t be ordained even if all men apostasize and that means that there is no priesthood left.
There is no possible way for a woman to be a priest in the Catholic Church no matter how bad things get. Celibacy is a whole different story.
You are correct, honestly I never even thought of ending the celibacy requirement
Luke 1:37You are correct, honestly I never even thought of ending the celibacy requirement
The thread was so preoccupied with Roman Catholics derrision of Anglican “priestesses”, that I mentioned the possible possibility of lifting the ban.
This thread is so full of unkind posts from both sides, I wish that there could be a little charity shown.
But I rather think that impossible.
There is no ban. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily.You are correct, honestly I never even thought of ending the celibacy requirement
The thread was so preoccupied with Roman Catholics derrision of Anglican “priestesses”, that I mentioned the possible possibility of lifting the ban.
This thread is so full of unkind posts from both sides, I wish that there could be a little charity shown.
But I rather think that impossible.
Thanks for the answer, Contarini (and I’m glad the question didn’t come across as an attempt to divert the topic).
I’ve mentioned a couple times on this forum that I could never be Protestant because of the Protestant take on the filioque. Namely, that Protestants embraced the insertion of the filioque into the Creed, and yet reject the very authority that authorized that insertion (the papacy).
Recently it occurred to me that ordination of women might be seen as natural outgrowth of the same. I.e. if you’re fine with changing the Creed, without pointing to the authority of the pope or an ecumenical council to justify it (Footnote: There have been ecumenical councils that sanctioned it, but they aren’t recognized by Anglicans.) then why not also change a long-standing uniform practice, without the authority of the pope or an ecumenical council?
(Of course, my argument kind of falls apart since you don’t approve of the insertion of the filioque in the Creed.
But I take it that you’re in an extremely small minority. I’ve never even heard of a single Anglican parish that says the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed without the filioque.)
Well no, it would be a big step for a parish to take on its own (it seems to me that I’ve heard of it happening, but it may be among non-Communion Anglicans of some sort; of course, there are at least two Episcopal parishes that don’t say the Nicene Creed at all, but that’s a whole different and much more serious problem!). But there has been some discussion of dropping it in the next Prayer Book. I hope that there won’t be another Prayer Book in my lifetime, though, since who knows what other stuff they’ll do at the same time!Thanks for the answer, Contarini (and I’m glad the question didn’t come across as an attempt to divert the topic
I’ve mentioned a couple times on this forum that I could never be Protestant because of the Protestant take on the filioque. Namely, that Protestants embraced the insertion of the filioque into the Creed, and yet reject the very authority that authorized that insertion (the papacy).
Recently it occurred to me that ordination of women might be seen as natural outgrowth of the same. I.e. if you’re fine with changing the Creed, without pointing to the authority of the pope or an ecumenical council to justify it (Footnote: There have been ecumenical councils that sanctioned it, but they aren’t recognized by Anglicans.) then why not also change a long-standing uniform practice, without the authority of the pope or an ecumenical council?
(Of course, my argument kind of falls apart since you don’t approve of the insertion of the filioque in the Creed.
NO doubt, but you seem simply to be evading the question. You claim there may be reasons I take it, but don’t wish to share them.
I would agree, and at least my understanding is that RCC has based the decision almost entirely on tradition. I also would agree that Paul’s prohibitions are “alleged” since I don’t think Paul was the actual writer of those verses. But you have not explained then, why you think that there is some difference when it comes to priests–or is it simply tradition?
Actually I don’t think they are humanistic to a complete respect, but are naturally concluded from scripture itself. I would agree that the voices for women’s ordination don’t respect tradition in this regard. Of course you can see the fallacy of such reasoning. For thousands of years, slavery was practiced throughout the world and could be considered a tradition. That did not and does not make it right to continue. We hopefully grow in understanding and recognize that we have erred in the past in understanding God’s will.
Again, I can’t view tradition as you do. The same could then be said for women voting, owning property, making contracts, children’s work laws. The list is inexhaustible. All were traditionally denied people for centuries. That doesn’t make them right, and when something is determined wrong, it must be abandoned. Jesus taught us that. He explained that again and again to the Pharisees of his time. Traditions have reasons, when the reasons fail, they should be either changed to re-establish the end intended or abandoned.
When I was in a Catholic college studying theology and biblical studies, we were given a large number of points of view. I first learned liberation theology, feminist, black, and a whole host of others. We read theology from may points of view. I have continued that practice, since I find it helpful in determining what has the best logical analysis. Most important I was taught how to read critically, always looking first for what the writer presumed as truth.
I have neglected to be careful in my word choice as well. I shall endeavor to correct it.
I chose poor words again. I was thinking of historical critical analysis of scripture versus writing that takes the text as given and attempts to write pastorally regarding how we can learn from it and apply it to our lives. Your definition of pastoral would be fine from my view.
I don’t see it as skeptical. The book is what it is, and is sacred in that it portrays the interactions of man and God. Sometimes, I would argue, man misunderstood. That takes nothing away. I would argue that I can understand it in its reality and thus it becomes a truly shockingly brilliant collection of writinigs. The skill of Paul, Mark, and others is amazing when you finally cut through all the centuries and begin to understand what was meant by some of the obscure phrases we have so misunderstood for centuries. To understand what Jesus really meant when he said “turn the other cheek” is literally mindblowing. For centuries we have taught this passivity when the most revolutionary resistance was meant.
Scratch that last statement. I spoke without really thinking. Nevertheless, I think the “extremely small minority” statement was correct.(Of course, my argument kind of falls apart since you don’t approve of the insertion of the filioque in the Creed.
I’ve read this paragraph a few times, but every time I feel like I’m missed something, as though my eyes must have skipped over a sentence or two.
Some good points. The only thing I want to put in here is that the highlighted statement is exactly the opposite of how I see it: I believe that historically it isn’t clear that Anglicans are Protestants, but that in modern times it is clear that Anglicans are Protestants. (In particular, the moderate-to-conservative side of Anglicanism is, numerically speaking, almost entirely low church. The Anglo-Catholics have mostly “gone home”. Edit: Gone home to Roman Catholicism, I mean of course, not gone home to God.)
Oh, no, I didn’t mean to imply I hadn’t heard that one. I think it likely to be true, at least in places, though I think it far to theoretical to be certain about. But, what you presented that was new to me, and please correct me if I get this wrong, is how you seemed to use that theory. I have the impression that you trust the reliability of the works accepted to be from Paul more than the others. This idea of some scripture being erroneous because of who may have actually written it was what was new to me.
I think I chose my words poorly. I think “no value to a believer as scripture” would have been a better choice, meaning that it would simply not be what we Catholics understand to be scriptural. Consider that in our tradition there are wonderful works by saints which are exactly as you describe. My patron St. Patrick wrote two beautiful works which give wonderful accounts of his experiences of meeting with the divine. They are very, very valuable and beneficial. But, obviously, we don’t see them as scripture.
These seem like very valid points to me, and I think I would even agree with your conclusion if I thought the Bible represented a single and discrete act of God. But, I don’t, and this is why I quoted St. Augustine as I did. For me the real problem is for those who believe the Bible is perfectly inerrant, but that the Church is an entirely human and fallible institution. In that context things just don’t add up. However, if we accept the Church as she presents herself, then we can see that God didn’t protect just the authors, but those who gathered the work, edited it, made additions to it, compiled it, and then codified it. All of this was under the divine guidance, and so the final product, though removed from the original holographs in time and often form is just as inspired and inerrant as the originals. The scriptures are a good example of the guarantees given by God to the Church, and it is not the only one.
By relativism I really hadn’t mean to refer to interpretation. I am very comfortable with diverse interpretations. Reading what other people think is meant by a passage can be very enlightening, even if I ultimately reject it. That is why I wanted to avoid too much commentary on interpretation. I felt there was a difference in how we saw the scripture itself, and ultimately that would disallow any common ground regarding how it can be interpreted.
Yes, I would say that is so. I think something at least must be certain in order to be able to really learn anything definitively positive from it. But, I wouldn’t say so for everything. Development and growth in biblical scholarship is, in my opinion, a good thing in most cases, as long as it is done authentically. The historical critical method has certainly been a benefit. The Church has embraced many of these techniques because it has seen the value in them. But, the scripture and what it is would seem more fundamental than exegesis of the text in that it addresses what the Church is in itself, and how it relates to the Deity. And while your approach is certainly intellectually plausible, and answers all the questions about textual variations well, I do fear it accepts too much uncertainty. At least for my taste.
I don’t have a problem kneeling because I’m kneeling to God. As far as the genuflecting or bowing at the altar, however, this would imply a valid consecration, which I don’t believe. So, I withhold special reverence towards the altar because there is no valid Eucharist, and, of course, I don’t take communion at Episcopal Churches. This is just my personal opinion, though. I know a very sincere Catholic, for instance, who is comfortable genuflecting at the altar.
I don’t believe that way at all. In fact, I believe that issues like this are keeping us all from participating in positive and productive dialogue. Jesus even said that we should all be as one. The Catholic church is not cooperating in my view.