Junia the female apostle

[SpiritMeadow]

No matter what anyone says, the bottom line is, in the future should the Church choose to arrive at a different conclusion it most certainly will do so, using the same documents you all site to justify its position. It’s often akin to trying to trace US supreme court decisions through a logical progression. It can be done, but only the Court can explain how. Similarly the Magisterium will have no difficulty in stating in no uncertain terms its basis for whatever conclusion it may reach.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Comparing the U.S. Supreme Court to the Catholic Church is a ridiculous assertion. The Supreme Court has time and again reversed itself because it is not infallible, so it can. When has the Church ever reversed something that was Dogma? It hasn’t because it can’t (because the Church IS infallible). Since this issue is Dogma, the Church cannot change it. If it does it ceases to be the Church.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Comparing the U.S. Supreme Court to the Catholic Church is a ridiculous assertion. The Supreme Court has time and again reversed itself because it is not infallible, so it can. When has the Church ever reversed something that was Dogma? It hasn’t because it can’t (because the Church IS infallible). Since this issue is Dogma, the Church cannot change it. If it does it ceases to be the Church.

You apparently like to argue just for the sake of arguing. You I believe are perfectly capable of getting the point. You choose to nitpick about non-essential points simply to argue. I can only hope you are not driving your RCIA leaders insane. There is no humbleness at all in your demeanor. You just dictate from some throne of rightness you establish yourself upon. I have no further truck with such nonsense.

good day.

 

[TMC]

The Church does not reverse anything that is dogma, but in reevaluating and reconsidering the depth and shape of the Church’s teachings, we sometimes learn that dogma is not what we though it was.

For example, in 1893 in Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII made very clear that the Bible was inerrant.

In order that all these endeavours and exertions may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures.

Because Leo XII also said that “This belief has been perpetually held and professed by the Church in regard to the Books of both Testaments,” it would certainly be fair to consider it dogma. By by 1943, Pope Pius XII had clarified that Catholics should interpret the Bible in the context in which it was written:

the Catholic commentator, in order to comply with the present needs of biblical studies, in explaining the Sacred Scripture and in demonstrating and proving its immunity from all error, should also make a prudent use of this means, determine, that is, to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation;

But Pius XII still maintained that:

Thus has it come about that confidence in the authority and historical value of the Bible, somewhat shaken in the case of some by so many attacks, today among Catholics is completely restored; moreover there are not wanting even non-Catholic writers, who by serious and calm inquiry have been led to abandon modern opinion and to return, at least in some points, to the more ancient ideas.

While at the same time cautioning:

in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books–legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical–there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church

By 1965 we have Dei Verbum which says:

However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

and

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

Of the books of the Old Testament it says they:

give expression to a lively sense of God, contain a store of sublime teachings about God, sound wisdom about human life, and a wonderful treasury of prayers, and in them the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way.

So does dogma change. Technically no. But in the course of 72 years dogma ‘evolved’ from an inerrant, historical, and scientific Bible, to one that must be read with the intent of the author in mind, with absolutely no emphasis on history, and all emphasis on its spiritual meaning.

So we can say dogma didn’t change, and by definition we are right. But if you read Dei Verbum to Leo XIII, what do you think he would have said?

 

[SemperFidelis]

You apparently like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Nope. Very presumptious of you. Maybe I just like to reiterate what the actual teaching is, so that people who have obviously flawed viewpoints can know what’s right. If you don’t like my demeanor just because I have espoused the truth of the matter, than that’s on you. This just reminds me of a quote by Pope St. Felix III:

“Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it.” -Pope St. Felix III

You I believe are perfectly capable of getting the point.

Apparantely not, what’s the point?

You choose to nitpick about non-essential points simply to argue.

Do you believe that correcting an erroneous opinion is non-essential? That this topic is non-essential? Popes Paul VI and John Paul II didn’t seem to think so, not to mention the CDF. Should we allow all kinds of opinions just so everybody can be happy? We sure wouldn’t want to offend anybody.

I can only hope you are not driving your RCIA leaders insane.

They haven’t spouted anything off the rail so no. If they do, I will kindly correct. It would be sinful to be quiet while somebody sits there and tries to influence catechumenates by teaching un-orthodox ideas.

There is no humbleness at all in your demeanor.

It’s an internet forum. How can you sit there hundreds of miles away and claim to know what my demeanor is? Emotions can’t be read here.

You just dictate from some throne of rightness you establish yourself upon. I have no further truck with such nonsense.

good day.

Please point out to me where, anywhere, where I have espoused nonsense.

 

[SemperFidelis]

The Church does not reverse anything that is dogma, but in reevaluating and reconsidering the depth and shape of the Church’s teachings, we sometimes learn that dogma is not what we though it was.

For example, in 1893 in Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII made very clear that the Bible was inerrant.

That the Bible is inerrant is still Church Dogma. Nowhere in Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis, or Dei Verbum was there ever a statement that said otherwise.

Here’s what the current Catechism teaches on the subject:

II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living.” If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”

So does dogma change. Technically no. But in the course of 72 years dogma ‘evolved’ from an inerrant, historical, and scientific Bible, to one that must be read with the intent of the author in mind, with absolutely no emphasis on history, and all emphasis on its spiritual meaning.

Evolve means to change into something else. Dogma can be developed into a further meaning, but does not evolve. There is a big difference here. I suggest reading John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Devolopment of Christian Doctrine. He is a very Traditional and orthodox Cardinal who goes into great detail on this difference. Women priests would be an obvious change, not a developed understanding.

 

[catharina]

Semper Fidelis - I accept the spirited accuracy contained in your posts! Prayers for you in your journey of fiath.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Semper Fidelis - I accept the spirited accuracy contained in your posts! Prayers for you in your journey of fiath.

Thank you very much and God Bless!

 

[SemperFidelis]

Evolve means to change into something else. Dogma can be developed in order to lead to a better understanding, but does not evolve. There is a big difference here. I suggest reading John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Essay on the Devolopment of Christian Doctrine. He is a very Traditional and orthodox Cardinal who goes into great detail on this difference. Women priests would be an obvious change, not a developed understanding.

It was too late to edit, and this is what this sentence should say in my above post.

 

[christcnection1]

It’s never gonna be a closed subject. Witness this thread. You guys actually came in and made it an issue. It was from the start a fairly innocuous gentle discussion of Junia. Now its a full blown argument about women’s ordination. Some people look for arguments.

Pardon me…

I started this thread. Yes, the first part of the post was on “Junia the female apostle,” but I then raised issue with the larger (more foundational) issue on female ordination.

I’m not sure if this has turned into a fight, but the discussion is quite in line with the why I started the thread.

We don’t have to agree, but we can certainly be civilized and charitable about it. I don’t see anyone here going over the edge or looking for a real fight. Even though I haven’t followed every post closely, this appears to be a reasonable dialogue.

Nearly all of us are starting with the genuine desire to do God’s will. Our goal is to please Him. I suspect you completely agree with this.

God Bless,
JB

 

[TMC]

That the Bible is inerrant is still Church Dogma. Nowhere in Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis, or Dei Verbum was there ever a statement that said otherwise.

I agree. But the way we think of “inerrant” has changed significantly in the last 150 or so years, hasn’t it. Do you disagree that Leo XIII thought the Bible historically inerrant, or that the Church no longer teaches that?

Evolve means to change into something else. Dogma can be developed into a further meaning, but does not evolve. There is a big difference here.

Is there a difference there? Dogma can be developed, I can accept that and reject the term evolve. But it is clear that as dogma develops our understanding of what it is necessarily changes. If it does not, there has been no development. The dogma on the inerrancy of Scripture developed away from a belief in the historical and scientific accuracy of Scripture, and toward a more spiritual and less literal interpretation. From our standpoint in the 21st century was can see that this was a development of our understanding of revealed truth. We continue to believe that Scripture is true, but we better understand what that truth is. Truth does not change, but our understanding of it does. But an objective observer standing in the 18th Century, without the benefit of the developments in dogma that intervened, would understand this as heresy. Similarly, we cannot know today the things we might consider heretical that will be understood 100 years from now to be a further development of received truth.

 

[yinekka]

The Greek Orthodox Church celebrates the feast of St Junias - a male saint.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I agree. But the way we think of “inerrant” has changed significantly in the last 150 or so years, hasn’t it. Do you disagree that Leo XIII thought the Bible historically inerrant, or that the Church no longer teaches that?

That would be Doctrinal Devolopment. Changed significantly? Not really, The Church has always taught the inerrancy of scripture. It just has a different understanding of inerrant now (ie: scripture is not a history or science book, and is not meant to be, but that doesn’t mean it is not completely inerrant).

Is there a difference there?

Very much. The evolution of Dogma means to change into something completely different. Dogma cannot do that.

Dogma can be developed, I can accept that and reject the term evolve. But it is clear that as dogma develops our understanding of what it is necessarily changes. If it does not, there has been no development. The dogma on the inerrancy of Scripture developed away from a belief in the historical and scientific accuracy of Scripture, and toward a more spiritual and less literal interpretation. From our standpoint in the 21st century was can see that this was a development of our understanding of revealed truth. We continue to believe that Scripture is true, but we better understand what that truth is. Truth does not change, but our understanding of it does. But an objective observer standing in the 18th Century, without the benefit of the developments in dogma that intervened, would understand this as heresy. Similarly, we cannot know today the things we might consider heretical that will be understood 100 years from now to be a further development of received truth.

Thing is when Dogma develops, you don’t reject the Dogma. Women’s ordination (which is the main subject at hand here) could never possibly be defined as devolopment. The Dogma is women cannot be ordained. To allow women to be ordained would be the rejection of the underlying Dogma, in which case that would be the evolution of Dogma, which has been condemned by several Popes. Certain Dogma’s, because they are so simple (like this case), cannot really develop at all, because they are “black and white.” You cannot argue that allowing women to be ordained would just be the development of Dogma.

 

[catharina]

In other words, there is progression in the process of our understanding of dogma. An example could be that we better understand the reasons why the priesthood is reserved for men because the dogma that it is reserved for men is very clear.

 

[SemperFidelis]

In other words, there is progression in the process of our understanding of dogma. An example could be that we better understand the reasons why the priesthood is reserved for men because the dogma that it is reserved for men is very clear.

Yes. This Dogma is very straightforward. It would be very hard to develop it without actually rejecting it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Nope. Very presumptious of you. Maybe I just like to reiterate what the actual teaching is, so that people who have obviously flawed viewpoints can know what’s right. If you don’t like my demeanor just because I have espoused the truth of the matter, than that’s on you. This just reminds me of a quote by Pope St. Felix III:

**People who have obviously flawed viewpoints? As if your’s is not a viewpoint. LOL such arrogance. **

“Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it.” -Pope St. Felix III

**Not everyone however is qualified to determine which is which. **

Apparantely not, what’s the point?

Do you believe that correcting an erroneous opinion is non-essential? That this topic is non-essential? Popes Paul VI and John Paul II didn’t seem to think so, not to mention the CDF. Should we allow all kinds of opinions just so everybody can be happy? We sure wouldn’t want to offend anybody.

You seem intent on placing everything in some legalistic mode that you think you can discern throughout Church documents. There is quite a bit more to faith than that.

They haven’t spouted anything off the rail so no. If they do, I will kindly correct. It would be sinful to be quiet while somebody sits there and tries to influence catechumenates by teaching un-orthodox ideas.

**Your presumptive arrogance is amazing. **

It’s an internet forum. How can you sit there hundreds of miles away and claim to know what my demeanor is? Emotions can’t be read here.
**lol…your words unfortunately tell us quite well. **

Please point out to me where, anywhere, where I have espoused nonsense.

You’ve been told before that your picking and choosing from Church documents is ill advised. Many of these documents must be taken in contexts that you may not be aware of. You continue blithely on. Perhaps a few generations of Catholicism under your belt might give you a new perspective. I doubt it though. …You seem to see the world in terms of only black and white. I hate to tell you what that is a symptom of.

 

[catharina]

semperfidelis:
It’s an internet forum. How can you sit there hundreds of miles away and claim to know what my demeanor is? Emotions can’t be read here.

spiritmeadow:
**lol…your words unfortunately tell us quite well. **

So spiritmeadow, because I’m always interested in the use of the “royal we” so please tell me who is the “us” of whom you speak? Do you have a represented following or do you imagine you have one? Talk about a “symptom” of something! For example, in this thread you do not speak for me, so who is your “us” at the moment.

 

[SemperFidelis]

People who have obviously flawed viewpoints? As if your’s is not a viewpoint. LOL such arrogance.

Well my viewpoint is in line with the Magisterium’s here, is yours? A view that is not in line with the Church’s is flawed. If you think that statement is arrogant, oh well.

Not everyone however is qualified to determine which is which.

This issue is so straightforward it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. I don’t know what kind of qualifications you want someone to have here.

You seem intent on placing everything in some legalistic mode that you think you can discern throughout Church documents. There is quite a bit more to faith than that.

How is this issue legalistic? You either think women can be Priests or you don’t. It’s that simple. The Church has spoken, the Dogma is infallible, cased closed (since you won’t take my word for it, the Church has said as much as well). I don’t know what more you want from this subject.

Your presumptive arrogance is amazing.

Pot meet kettle…

You’ve been told before that your picking and choosing from Church documents is ill advised.

Show me one, just one official document that supports the ordaining of women. Pick and choose? Actually I have linked every document that pertains to this issue that has been published by the Church in the last 50 years. What more do you want?

Many of these documents must be taken in contexts that you may not be aware of.

Really and what are these contexts? That the Church has the authority to ordain women? I think not, as does the Church.

You continue blithely on. Perhaps a few generations of Catholicism under your belt might give you a new perspective. I doubt it though. …You seem to see the world in terms of only black and white.

I do see the world in black and white. There are absolute truths and the Church agrees, seeing as they have defined many of these absolute truths through the years. You are in a strange religion if you don’t think things are black and white. Sin is sin no matter the circumstance, and the Church has always believed such.

I hate to tell you what that is a symptom of.

No you can tell me. Unlike many who live in a fairy-tale world, I don’t get offended so easily.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

semperfidelis:
It’s an internet forum. How can you sit there hundreds of miles away and claim to know what my demeanor is? Emotions can’t be read here.

spiritmeadow:
lol…your words unfortunately tell us quite well.

So spiritmeadow, because I’m always interested in the use of the “royal we” so please tell me who is the “us” of whom you speak? Do you have a represented following or do you imagine you have one? Talk about a “symptom” of something! For example, in this thread you do not speak for me, so who is your “us” at the moment.

I think we all know who is on who’s side in these discussions. I certainly know I’m not speaking for you.

Well my viewpoint is in line with the Magisterium’s here, is yours? A view that is not in line with the Church’s is flawed. If you think that statement is arrogant, oh well.

This issue is so straightforward it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. I don’t know what kind of qualifications you want someone to have here.

How is this issue legalistic? You either think women can be Priests or you don’t. It’s that simple. The Church has spoken, the Dogma is infallible, cased closed (since you won’t take my word for it, the Church has said as much as well). I don’t know what more you want from this subject.

Pot meet kettle…

Show me one, just one official document that supports the ordaining of women. Pick and choose? Actually I have linked every document that pertains to this issue that has been published by the Church in the last 50 years. What more do you want?

Really and what are these contexts? That the Church has the authority to ordain women? I think not, as does the Church.

I do see the world in black and white. There are absolute truths and the Church agrees, seeing as they have defined many of these absolute truths through the years. You are in a strange religion if you don’t think things are black and white. Sin is sin no matter the circumstance, and the Church has always believed such.

No you can tell me. Unlike many who live in a fairy-tale world, I don’t get offended so easily.

See all you do is ignore the point, skirt the issue, and pretend you never we are referring to something else again. I think I’ll wait a few years till I speak with you again.

 

[catharina]

I think we all know who is on who’s side in these discussions. I certainly know I’m not speaking for you.

See all you do is ignore the point, skirt the issue, and pretend you never we are referring to something else again. I think I’ll wait a few years till I speak with you again.

It’s really amazing to me that you would choose to speak for a “we” that only exists in your head. Each of us in these forums speaks for himself or herself. There is no monolithic “we.”