How do pro-women's ordination deal with the 12 male Apostles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your terminology needs tightening. There is no single entity entitled The Anglican Church. I suspect you may have in mind the Anglican Communion, that group of autonomous Churches that originally sprang from the Church of England, and retain communion (occasionally impaired) with each other. The children, in a loose sense, of Canterbury.

Many of these Churches, of late (last 30+ years, or so), do consider that males are not the only valid subjects to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Some of the other Churches in the Communion will ordain to the diaconate, some retain the orthodox historical position.

Which gives you a glimpse at the well known Anglican spectrum (or motleyness) of doctrine/praxis. But does not exhaust that spectrum. Outside of the Anglican Communion lies the area of the Continuing Anglican Churches (or the Continuum), none of which seeks to ordain beyond the position of the historical Church. And then there is the sort of hybrid ACNA, partially one thing, partially another, not in the Communion, not a part of the Continuum, but with mutual friends each way. In the ACNA, some bishops do. some don’t. Complex.

There once was a time when some progress might have been made to reduce the distance between the Anglican world and the RCC, particularly at the time of Paul VI and Archbishop Ramsey and the establishment of the ARCIC. That time is long gone.

If by received, you mean received in their orders, no. Not ever. If you mean meet, sure.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
There once was a time when some progress might have been made to reduce the distance between the Anglican world and the RCC, particularly at the time of Paul VI and Archbishop Ramsey and the establishment of the ARCIC. That time is long gone.
Click to expand...
Although the time is long gone, it seems like the ecumenical discussions, friendly greetings, speeches and meetings have been increasing? And women clergy are seen and photographed with an apparently friendly Pope?
 
Last edited:
Thorolfr said:
Are all claims that are contrary to your beliefs “ridiculous”?
Click to expand...
No, all claims that are contrary to MY beliefs are not ridiculous. But most claims that go against Church teaching are often ridiculous.

The reason I say that the claim that Jesus only picked men because He was following social norms of His day is ridiculous is because Jesus broke with social norms all the time.

When Jesus spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well, he was breaking established social norms of His day, to the point where the Apostles were baffled that He was talking with her. Not just because she was married multiple times, but because it was unheard of for a Jewish man to speak publicly to a Samaritan woman in a public place.

Also, Jesus sat and ate with tax collectors and other sinners all the time. And tax collectors, back then, were some of the worst people because they were individual contractors with the Roman government. The Romans expected X amount of money from each of them and whatever additional moneys they got from the people, they got to keep. So the more money they could take from a person, the more money when in their pockets - that’s how they were paid.

Jesus bucked social norms all the time, and that’s why they killed Him.

Therefore, to claim that He didn’t pick female Apostles because He didn’t want to buck social norms is pretty ridiculous because He was NOT AFRAID to challenge any norms He didn’t agree with.

Furthermore, Christ knew people would be having this discussion / debate about female clergy. So I argue that if Jesus wanted female clergy, he would have started by making His own Mother an apostle, along with several of the other women who were some of His closest disciples. The Apostles all loved Mary and called her Mother. And they listened to her and welcomed her council and wisdom. I have no doubt that they would have not listened to her if she was an Apostle.

But Jesus didn’t do that. Nor did he provide instructions that women could become priests. Instead, He specifically mentioned that He was reinstating the Priestly Order of Melchizedek - which was specifically male only.

Therefore, this is why I say the two claims I mentioned are “ridiculous,” because they do not stand up to the historical record.

God bless
 
Looks like that, yep.

Distance between the world of Anglicanism and the RCC increasing on the formal doctrinal fronts. Making good PR on the meet and greet fronts.

The latter was not the idea behind the formation of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, back in the ancient days of His Holiness, Pope Paul VI, and Ramsey Cantuar.
 
catholic1seeks said:
So how to Christians (who want women’s ordination) deal with Christ appointing 12 men as Apostles?
Click to expand...
Indeed you should ask them instead of stirring up a polemic with folks that are peacefully going about their own thing.

Then, I’d say your question (in line with other questions I’ve read you post) is already over-involved in polemics and shows a tendency to dwell on polemics. If you have people advocating polemic and divisive issues next to you, one thing is knowing how to address that and what to think of it, another completely different thing is following suit getting involved in divisive arguments, do give yourself and CAF’ers in general a rest. This is one debate that is not going to elevate anyone beyond the point they’re already at.
 
GKMotley said:
Making good PR on the meet and greet fronts.
Click to expand...
You meet and great persons. They are persons and being with them is a good effort, and encounter.

Don’t pretend to reduce that to politics or media show-off PR. That’s slandering the papacy and the ecumenical efforts in their true intentions.
 
Last edited:
There are Anglicans about, in the close environs, who do want and do deal, and do post in this thread and forum, on those questions . Or, one such, anyway.

No, that’s not me.
 
Let me know when progress is made on narrowing the distance on the doctrine/praxis front.

You have an odd idea of what slandering the Papacy might mean. Personal opinion.
 
Questioner13 said:
Or to put it another way, if the priesthood is an exclusively male role in just the same way that pregnancy and giving birth is an exclusively female role and those roles are equal, surely no priest can have authority to dictate to a woman what she should or should not do in respect of pregnancy and child-bearing. Therefore all papal teachings on contraception and abortion must be discarded as over-stepping a man’s authority and invalid in the same manner as a Eucharistic consecration performed by a woman.

No?
Click to expand...
No. The argument that contraception and abortion are matters that only concern the woman’s body is wrong. Regarding abortion this overlooks the fact that another body is involved, the body of another human being, one who has no say over whether they live or die. Your argument also gives a father absolutely no right to defend the life of his child. A woman does not have the authority to kill her own child. As for contraception, this is not about just the woman, conception involves both man and woman.

Your argument presumes that nobody else, but the woman, is affected by decisions regarding abortion and contraception. This is just not the case.

Is it overstepping authority for the Church tp seek to defend the lives of the innocent and vulnerable from being killed by those more powerful? Who is more innocent or vulnerable than a child in the womb?
 
Last edited:
This not a man-woman fight. The Church teaches abortion is wrong because the woman is carrying a genetically unique human being in her body. The false pretense that ‘men can’t tell us what to do’ is agitation, not debate. To the radicals: No, the Church is not out to get you. You can’t change established teaching.
 
Yep. Seven years and more ago. But…yep.

I have not seen much news on the Ordinariate over there, lately.
 
Maybe Jesus didn’t pick women as appostles because he knew that they wouldn’t be as effective in spreading the gospel at that time. A lot of the appostles went to far off places, but as men they could go on their own. A woman would probably have had to be accompanied by a man for her protection and because people would have thought it inappropriate for a woman to wander off to some place like India by herself. People from other cultures, especially men, would probably have been less likely to listen to a woman. So, Jesus might not have appointed women appostles not because he was afraid to, but for the practical reason that they would not have been as successful in their missions in the first century world.
 
Last edited:
Thorolfr said:
A woman would probably have had to be accompanied by a man for her protection and because people would have thought it inappropriate for a woman to wander off to some place like India by herself.
Click to expand...
Saint Ignatius of Loyola’s auto-biography actually has two curious examples of this.
 
Incorrect. Jesus, as God, was not bound by any cultural norms. Speculation is not evidence but arguing for something the Church cannot allow.
 
Medawlinno said:
A priest administering sacraments does not become Christ (and therefore must be male).
Click to expand...
That’s where you’re wrong. The Priest is in persona Christi. We believe that it is Christ that administers the sacraments which is why the holiness of the Priest does not matter.
 
As someone else said this is all just speculation. If you are Catholic, you believe in the authority of the Church and the leading of the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit and He would guide us into all truth.

The rest is just arguing for something that can’t happen, misguiding and leading people away and possibly down a destructive path.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top