Non-Catholics: How do you know that the words of Jesus are true?

[adf417]

Are you in any doubt as to what I meant by those words? If you aren’t, then you are playing a cynical game to dodge my serious question.

I am in doubt as to what exactly counts as an “organization” in this context.

You seem quite certain that the interpretation of Scripture must have been entrusted to an “organization,” and the only question is which one. This does not seem self-evident to me at all. I hoped that more clarity might emerge from a definition of “organization,” but apparently you don’t want to do that.

Edwin

Hello Edwin, I have always respected your position and I enjoy reading what you have to post. At lease the parts I can understand.

Forgive me if you have already addressed PR’s response in #711 to this post and please point me to that reply. I think I have read all posts and don’t remember if you did. Without trying to define what PR means by “organization” or what your understanding of it is, I would also like to ask one of the more intelligent posters here, in my own way…

I keep reading and hearing arguments in opposition to what evolves in to sounding like “the Catholic church defined the canon” or some other offensive language to non-Catholics but I have never heard a clear and definitive response. While I can respect your position that the Catholic perspective is not self evident to you, can you please give us what is evident to you in terms of how the canon was determined and how is this evidence to be seen by the lesser intelligent?

It does seem to me you understand the Catholic side of the argument but don’t agree with it and I can respect that. My problem is I don’t understand the non-Catholic argument to even begin to decide if I agree with it or not. I sincerely ask if you could please help me understand this perspective that a visible entity is not what defined the canon and what does the alternative look and mustn’t this explanation be understood by even the least intelligent?

Peace!!!

 

[Contarini]

I keep reading and hearing arguments in opposition to what evolves in to sounding like “the Catholic church defined the canon” or some other offensive language to non-Catholics but I have never heard a clear and definitive response. While I can respect your position that the Catholic perspective is not self evident to you, can you please give us what is evident to you in terms of how the canon was determined and how is this evidence to be seen by the lesser intelligent?

It does seem to me you understand the Catholic side of the argument but don’t agree with it and I can respect that. My problem is I don’t understand the non-Catholic argument to even begin to decide if I agree with it or not. I sincerely ask if you could please help me understand this perspective that a visible entity is not what defined the canon and what does the alternative look and mustn’t this explanation be understood by even the least intelligent?

I wouldn’t say that I disagree with the Catholic perspective so much as I disagree with common talking points made by Catholic apologists. I think that the canon is one of the strongest Catholic arguments, thrown away by apologists who ruin it with silly claims like “there was no Bible for 300 years.” On the other hand, there isn’t one “non-Catholic” (I think you really mean “Protestant,” unless you are seriously asking about Orthodox views) perspective, but many, most of which I think are untenable.

As in so many similar debates, I think that the correct position, and the early Church’s position (which is generally, broadly speaking, the same thing), transcends both Protestant and Catholic views, although the Catholic view, properly nuanced, is basically correct.

The legitimate Protestant criticisms of the way Catholics often present their case are:

1. Scripture is defined in formal rather than material terms–as a canon rather than as particular content. That’s how you get what sound to Protestant like crazy statements such as “there was no Bible until the fourth century.” This means “there was no fully defined, universally accepted, precise canon until the fourth century.” (I’d go further and say, “until the sixteenth,” if you really want to define it that precisely.) But to many Protestants it seems pretty silly to use the term “Bible” to mean “a fully defined, precise canon.” “The Bible” is a name for the material that the Church has recognized to be divinely inspired. Clearly such material existed long before the fourth century.
2. This brings us to the most common complaint, which is that Catholics confuse the recognition of Scripture with the creation of Scripture. The Church acknowledges that God has inspired certain books. The Church does not make them inspired, and thus to many Protestants it seems blasphemous to say such things as “the Church created Scripture.” The common Catholic usage here follows on the first point. If “Scripture” means “a list” rather than divinely inspired content, then it makes sense to say that the Church created the list. But again, to many Protestants that seems to miss the point pretty badly and focus on formalities rather than Spirit-inspired content.
3. And finally, there’s the question of what we mean by “the Church” when we speak of the Church determining the canon. (That was the point I was raising in my objection to PRMerger’s casual use of the term “organization.”) What is the Church? That’s really the fundamental question between Catholics and Protestants, I think. And again, I think the answer is both/and rather than either/or. Protestants are right that the Church is the body of believers, not just the hierarchy. But many of them see no point in a hierarchy at all, and they are wrong. The Church, properly ordered, is led by bishops in apostolic succession in communion with the Bishop of Rome. And obviously the early Church, which discerned that certain books were inspired by God, was so ordered. However, Catholics spoil their excellent case when they insist on the hierarchical nature of the canon-recognition process. The evidence indicates that this process was mostly a matter of reception by particular communities of believers and then a lengthy process of sorting out the differences between various local canonical traditions. Of course bishops, including Rome, played a key role. But Catholics often speak of the process as if all the bishops got together and issued a decree one day, and that’s not how it happened.

Now for the major Protestant alternatives, which I think are untenable:

1. Protestants often argue that Scripture is “self-authenticating.” This builds on legitimate point 2, of course–the Holy Spirit both inspires Scripture in the first place and witnesses that it is inspired. But clearly this witness speaks to the Church as a whole and not to individuals in isolation. Not recognizing this is perhaps the greatest error of garden-variety American Protestantism. Fortunately, many folks are recognizing this error and moving to a healthier understanding of how Christians hear the Spirit–in community with each other. That being said, I find that many Protestants use the term “self-authenticating” as a magic formula to avoid thinking about the canonical process at all. If you challenge it, you are challenging Scripture somehow. I have trouble explaining this attitude so as to make sense of it, because I don’t think it does make sense.

 

[Contarini]

1. A final common objection is that the “early Church” isn’t the same thing as the “Roman Catholic Church.” This is perhaps particularly common among Anglicans and others less likely to go with the first two approaches. For many moderate Protestants, the judgments of the Church as a whole are to be taken very seriously, while the modern “Roman Catholic Church” is seen as just one among many fragments of the Church. This is the perspective with which I’m most in sympathy, but as Newman showed, it’s very naive insofar as it doesn’t acknowledge that the early “Catholic Church” was itself one among many contenders. The canon was forged in controversies with Marcionites and Gnostics who had their own rival canons. It wasn’t just “the list of books that everyone agreed on.”

So to boil the matter down, I think that the attempts of many Protestants to evade the question of Church authority are in vain. Rather, there are two questions that need to be answered on both sides:

a. How is the early Church related to the Church today? Are all Trinitarian Christians its heirs, or just those in communion with Rome, or some other subset of Trinitarian Christianity?

b. Why do we treat the canonical decisions of the early Church differently than other decisions the early Church made?

Note that both of these questions need to be answered by both sides. Catholics can’t just assume a simple identity of the Roman Communion with the early Catholic Church. Nor can they simply argue “we should accept everything the early Church accepted,” because there were beliefs and practices of the early Church that Catholics don’t accept today (like the very harsh attitude to Jews or some of the cultural beliefs about women). But Catholics do have coherent and reasonable answers to these questions.

If Protestants are to have a reasonable answer, it would go (in my opinion) along these lines:

a. All Trinitarian Christians are heirs of the early Catholic Church, not because the early Church was “just everybody” but because the formative doctrinal choices of the early Church were of particular importance and have proved consistently over the centuries to be the right ones. The differences between early Catholics and Marcionites or Arians are fundamental to our identity as Christians in a way that Catholic-Protestant differences aren’t. And this is clearly recognized by the Catholic Church today, since “Rome” acknowledges Trinitarian Protestants as baptized brothers and sisters and makes a sharp distinction between them and such groups as the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

b. These fundamentally constitutive acts of the early Church include (but are not limited to) the recognition of the core books of the canon. From this perspective, some disagreement about canon is possible where the early Church disagreed. The only point where that disagreement is still alive today is with regard to the “deuterocanonical” books of the OT. For moderate, ecumenical Protestants (such as Anglicans) the question of whether these books are fully canonical is not terribly important. They clearly should be used and treated with honor, but there are some good reasons to question whether they are fully inspired in the way that the books of the Hebrew canon and the NT canon are.

For this argument to work, it needs to be nuanced, I think, by a recognition of the importance of Rome within the broader Church. I am convinced that the bishops of Rome do have a divinely ordained role to play in safeguarding orthodoxy. I am not convinced that everything they condemn is to be condemned, but I am convinced that they have never accepted into the canonical heritage of the Church (I’m using this phrase to mean more than just books, but also defined doctrines, liturgical practices, etc.) something that is fundamentally incompatible with it. This is the main place where I differ from most Anglicans and other ecumenical Protestants, who generally see your Church simply as “the biggest denomination”–an important ecumenical partner because of its size and its links with tradition, but not qualitiatively different from other Christian bodies. That’s why I keep trying to convert personally, but my conviction that all Trinitarian Christians are members of the Church keeps pulling me back.

Sorry for the very long answer. But it’s a complicated question. And that gets to your last assertion, that the answer must be understandable by the least intelligent. I can’t see why. Most Christians, rightly, accept the teachings of the Christian body that has proclaimed the Gospel to them. They have encountered Jesus, they receive grace from the Word and Sacraments, and that’s fundamentally all we need. Only some weird nerdy people like me worry about the “meta” issues, although I think that this concern, when it descends on a person, is probably a call from God.

Edwin

 

[AbideWithMe]

I suspect, too, Contarini, it is a call from God in regards to you. No doubt it would be more comfortable for you, personally, to have less critical thinking skills and be more easily able to settle in one land or another without sojourning so long in between shores, but what is uncomfortable for you is, at least (and no small thing) of help to others. You are undeniably one of the most clear-thinking and articulate writers I’ve come across.

 

[Thorolfr]

I am convinced that the bishops of Rome do have a divinely ordained role to play in safeguarding orthodoxy.

What kind of “divinely ordained role” the bishops of Rome might have is one of the most difficult issues and I think that claims of papal infallibility in particular are an overreach and will not only prevent any reconciliation with Protestants but will create a crisis for the Catholic Church down the road.

Take the issue of women’s ordination. There is no going back to an all male clergy for many mainline Protestant denominations. But various popes have made pronouncements against the ordination of women and while it’s possible that those pronouncements might not technically rise to the level of infallible doctrine, the claims of papal infallibility under certain circumstances have pretty much locked those pronouncements into stone in the minds of many Catholics so that changing course later on would create a huge backlash. These claims of papal infallibility are painting the Catholic Church into a corner that it will be difficult to get out of later.

 

[PRmerger]

What kind of “divinely ordained role” the bishops of Rome might have is one of the most difficult issues and I think that claims of papal infallibility in particular are an overreach and will not only prevent any reconciliation with Protestants but will create a crisis for the Catholic Church down the road.

Take the issue of women’s ordination. There is no going back to an all male clergy for many mainline Protestant denominations. But various popes have made pronouncements against the ordination of women and while it’s possible that those pronouncements might not technically rise to the level of infallible papal doctrine, the claims of papal infallibility have pretty much locked those pronouncements into stone in the minds of many Catholics so that changing course later on would create a huge backlash. These claims of papal infallibility are painting the Catholic Church into a corner that it will be difficult to get out of later.

This post demonstrates an impoverished understanding of the Catholic priesthood.

It is no more possible for a woman to get ordained than it is for 3 people to be married to each other.

It’s just not ontologically possible.

 

[rcwitness]

1. A final common objection is that the “early Church” isn’t the same thing as the “Roman Catholic Church.” This is perhaps particularly common among Anglicans and others less likely to go with the first two approaches. For many moderate Protestants, the judgments of the Church as a whole are to be taken very seriously, while the modern “Roman Catholic Church” is seen as just one among many fragments of the Church. This is the perspective with which I’m most in sympathy, but as Newman showed, it’s very naive insofar as it doesn’t acknowledge that the early “Catholic Church” was itself one among many contenders. The canon was forged in controversies with Marcionites and Gnostics who had their own rival canons. It wasn’t just “the list of books that everyone agreed on.”

So to boil the matter down, I think that the attempts of many Protestants to evade the question of Church authority are in vain. Rather, there are two questions that need to be answered on both sides:

a. How is the early Church related to the Church today? Are all Trinitarian Christians its heirs, or just those in communion with Rome, or some other subset of Trinitarian Christianity?

b. Why do we treat the canonical decisions of the early Church differently than other decisions the early Church made?

Note that both of these questions need to be answered by both sides. Catholics can’t just assume a simple identity of the Roman Communion with the early Catholic Church. Nor can they simply argue “we should accept everything the early Church accepted,” because there were beliefs and practices of the early Church that Catholics don’t accept today (like the very harsh attitude to Jews or some of the cultural beliefs about women). But Catholics do have coherent and reasonable answers to these questions.

If Protestants are to have a reasonable answer, it would go (in my opinion) along these lines:

a. All Trinitarian Christians are heirs of the early Catholic Church, not because the early Church was “just everybody” but because the formative doctrinal choices of the early Church were of particular importance and have proved consistently over the centuries to be the right ones. The differences between early Catholics and Marcionites or Arians are fundamental to our identity as Christians in a way that Catholic-Protestant differences aren’t. And this is clearly recognized by the Catholic Church today, since “Rome” acknowledges Trinitarian Protestants as baptized brothers and sisters and makes a sharp distinction between them and such groups as the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

b. These fundamentally constitutive acts of the early Church include (but are not limited to) the recognition of the core books of the canon. From this perspective, some disagreement about canon is possible where the early Church disagreed. The only point where that disagreement is still alive today is with regard to the “deuterocanonical” books of the OT. For moderate, ecumenical Protestants (such as Anglicans) the question of whether these books are fully canonical is not terribly important. They clearly should be used and treated with honor, but there are some good reasons to question whether they are fully inspired in the way that the books of the Hebrew canon and the NT canon are.

For this argument to work, it needs to be nuanced, I think, by a recognition of the importance of Rome within the broader Church. I am convinced that the bishops of Rome do have a divinely ordained role to play in safeguarding orthodoxy. I am not convinced that everything they condemn is to be condemned, but I am convinced that they have never accepted into the canonical heritage of the Church (I’m using this phrase to mean more than just books, but also defined doctrines, liturgical practices, etc.) something that is fundamentally incompatible with it. This is the main place where I differ from most Anglicans and other ecumenical Protestants, who generally see your Church simply as “the biggest denomination”–an important ecumenical partner because of its size and its links with tradition, but not qualitiatively different from other Christian bodies. That’s why I keep trying to convert personally, but my conviction that all Trinitarian Christians are members of the Church keeps pulling me back.

Sorry for the very long answer. But it’s a complicated question. And that gets to your last assertion, that the answer must be understandable by the least intelligent. I can’t see why. Most Christians, rightly, accept the teachings of the Christian body that has proclaimed the Gospel to them. They have encountered Jesus, they receive grace from the Word and Sacraments, and that’s fundamentally all we need. Only some weird nerdy people like me worry about the “meta” issues, although I think that this concern, when it descends on a person, is probably a call from God.

Edwin

I think you raise some good and interesting points and thoughts, Edwin. What thought comes to my mind, is that there are degrees of the truth which Christians accept.

This can have two large aspects. One being on a personal level, while the other on a particular Church body.

Since, as you rightly acknowledge, the Catholic Church does recognize that there are genuine Christians who exist in Communions which have separation from all things Catholic, this means that some fundamental aspects of the faith (under certain circumstances) can be unaccepted yet a person still led by the Holy Spirit in enough fundamentals to be saved and bear fruit.

IOW’s, a Christian can reject certain books of the bible, or that it is absolutely free from all errors in faith and morals, yet still accept enough to be saved. This is a lot like the struggle for Catholics to try to convey that the Catholic faith is free from error, yet genuine Protestants don’t accept it all and still are able to be rightly called Christian brothers and sisters.

 

[Peter_J]

What kind of “divinely ordained role” the bishops of Rome might have is one of the most difficult issues and I think that claims of papal infallibility in particular are an overreach and will not only prevent any reconciliation with Protestants but will create a crisis for the Catholic Church down the road.

Take the issue of women’s ordination. There is no going back to an all male clergy for many mainline Protestant denominations.

To paraphrase Aragorn, now let us cry: “a plague on the stiff necks of mainline Protestants!”

 

[Thorolfr]

This post demonstrates an impoverished understanding of the Catholic priesthood.

It is no more possible for a woman to get ordained than it is for 3 people to be married to each other.

It’s just not ontologically possible.

Your post just proves my point. We recently elected Elizabeth Eaton in 2013 as the 4th Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Church of England has also started consecrating women bishops. I’ve also had conversations with women in my congregation who grew up in the much more conservative Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and left the Missouri Synod over this issue. There is no going back on this issue in many Mainline Protestant denominations and this issue alone would prevent any reconciliation between the Catholic Church and many Protestants. And the Catholic Church would have an almost impossible task of changing its position on this issue later on because of claims of papal infallibility.

 

[PRmerger]

Your post just proves my point. We recently elected Elizabeth Eaton in 2013 as the 4th Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Church of England has also started consecrating women bishops. I’ve also had conversations with women in my congregation who grew up in the much more conservative Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and left the Missouri Synod over this issue. There is no going back on this issue in many Mainline Protestant denominations and this issue alone would prevent any reconciliation between the Catholic Church and many Protestants. And the Catholic Church would have an almost impossible task of changing its position on this issue later on because of claims of papal infallibility.

It’s not because of claims of papal infallibility that the Church can’t change her position on women’s ordination.

It’s because it’s simply impossible for a woman to be ordained.

Just like it’s never going to happen that the Church is going to permit a 3-person marriage.

#impossible

Imagine if you were on a Geometry Forum and your university president decided to call this shape a square:

http://fe867b.medialib.glogster.com...2fd24ba2723935c879ae/circle-purple-lg-jpg.jpg

My college president says, “No. That shape will never be a square.”

It’s not because he’s president that he says it, but because he is presenting a statement that is consonant with reality.

 

[PRmerger]

Your post just proves my point. We recently elected Elizabeth Eaton in 2013 as the 4th Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Church of England has also started consecrating women bishops. I’ve also had conversations with women in my congregation who grew up in the much more conservative Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and left the Missouri Synod over this issue. There is no going back on this issue in many Mainline Protestant denominations and this issue alone would prevent any reconciliation between the Catholic Church and many Protestants. And the Catholic Church would have an almost impossible task of changing its position on this issue later on because of claims of papal infallibility.

And I don’t think this is any more of a barrier to Christian Unity than any other disagreement that Protestants have with Catholicism.

Protestant churches, where they have divorced themselves from the kerygma, simply need to turn the ship back on course.

That’s certainly not an impossibility.

In the case of your communion, it could certainly unite with the Catholic Church, and the women who attempted ordination could serve in some other ministerial role in the Church.

It’s futile to say that there is no turning back.

With Christ, all can turn back.

 

[Thorolfr]

It’s not because of claims of papal infallibility that the Church can’t change her position on women’s ordination.

It’s because it’s simply impossible for a woman to be ordained.

How do you know that it’s impossible for a woman to be ordained? Has the Catholic Church done an experiment where they have tried to ordain a woman and can prove that the ordination has not worked? Can they prove using some sort of scientific experiment that an ordained woman is unable to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist?

 

[rcwitness]

How do you know that it’s impossible for a woman to be ordained? Has the Catholic Church done an experiment where they have tried to ordain a woman and can prove that the ordination has not worked? Can they prove using some sort of scientific experiment that an ordained woman is unable to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist?

If a denomination decided to take out James from the Bible, do you think they would still have the bible?

 

[PRmerger]

How do you know that it’s impossible for a woman to be ordained? Has the Catholic Church done an experiment where they have tried to ordain a woman and can prove that the ordination has not worked? Can they prove using some sort of scientific experiment that an ordained woman is unable to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist?

You ask this because you think that the priesthood is all about what you do.

I can assure you that this is not the Catholic understanding of the priesthood.

If it were about what you do, then it’s absolutely true that a woman could be a priest. She could manage an office staff, hire and fire, pay bills, preach an awesome sermon, counsel a married couple, greet parishioners after Mass and know everyone’s name…

However, Catholic priests don’t view their vocation as what they do. Ordination is not the “deputizing” of someone to perform an assignment; it is NOT the admission of someone to a profession such medicine or law.

But that’s exactly what it is in the Protestant world–a deputization to perform some duties.

Once you disengage from this view of the priesthood, you will be able to understand why it is that women can’t be ordained.

 

[Thorolfr]

But that’s exactly what it is in the Protestant world–a deputization to perform some duties.

Once you disengage from this view of the priesthood, you will be able to understand why it is that women can’t be ordained.

It can be claimed that Tradition does not support the ordination of women, but aside from that, I’ve never heard of any concrete, observable proof that an ordained woman is different from an ordained man. I’ve heard it claimed, for example, that ordination leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the person ordained and that this can only happen with men, but I don’t know how this could be proven since it is not possible for us to see this indelible mark.

 

[adf417]

I wouldn’t say that I disagree with the Catholic perspective so much as I disagree with common talking points made by Catholic apologists. I think that the canon is one of the strongest Catholic arguments, thrown away by apologists who ruin it with silly claims like “there was no Bible for 300 years.” On the other hand, there isn’t one “non-Catholic” (I think you really mean “Protestant,” unless you are seriously asking about Orthodox views) perspective, but many, most of which I think are untenable.

As in so many similar debates, I think that the correct position, and the early Church’s position (which is generally, broadly speaking, the same thing), transcends both Protestant and Catholic views, although the Catholic view, properly nuanced, is basically correct.

The legitimate Protestant criticisms of the way Catholics often present their case are:

1. Scripture is defined in formal rather than material terms–as a canon rather than as particular content. That’s how you get what sound to Protestant like crazy statements such as “there was no Bible until the fourth century.” This means “there was no fully defined, universally accepted, precise canon until the fourth century.” (I’d go further and say, “until the sixteenth,” if you really want to define it that precisely.) But to many Protestants it seems pretty silly to use the term “Bible” to mean “a fully defined, precise canon.” “The Bible” is a name for the material that the Church has recognized to be divinely inspired. Clearly such material existed long before the fourth century.
2. This brings us to the most common complaint, which is that Catholics confuse the recognition of Scripture with the creation of Scripture. The Church acknowledges that God has inspired certain books. The Church does not make them inspired, and thus to many Protestants it seems blasphemous to say such things as “the Church created Scripture.” The common Catholic usage here follows on the first point. If “Scripture” means “a list” rather than divinely inspired content, then it makes sense to say that the Church created the list. But again, to many Protestants that seems to miss the point pretty badly and focus on formalities rather than Spirit-inspired content.
3. And finally, there’s the question of what we mean by “the Church” when we speak of the Church determining the canon. (That was the point I was raising in my objection to PRMerger’s casual use of the term “organization.”) What is the Church? That’s really the fundamental question between Catholics and Protestants, I think. And again, I think the answer is both/and rather than either/or. Protestants are right that the Church is the body of believers, not just the hierarchy. But many of them see no point in a hierarchy at all, and they are wrong. The Church, properly ordered, is led by bishops in apostolic succession in communion with the Bishop of Rome. And obviously the early Church, which discerned that certain books were inspired by God, was so ordered. However, Catholics spoil their excellent case when they insist on the hierarchical nature of the canon-recognition process. The evidence indicates that this process was mostly a matter of reception by particular communities of believers and then a lengthy process of sorting out the differences between various local canonical traditions. Of course bishops, including Rome, played a key role. But Catholics often speak of the process as if all the bishops got together and issued a decree one day, and that’s not how it happened.

Now for the major Protestant alternatives, which I think are untenable:

1. Protestants often argue that Scripture is “self-authenticating.” This builds on legitimate point 2, of course–the Holy Spirit both inspires Scripture in the first place and witnesses that it is inspired. But clearly this witness speaks to the Church as a whole and not to individuals in isolation. Not recognizing this is perhaps the greatest error of garden-variety American Protestantism. Fortunately, many folks are recognizing this error and moving to a healthier understanding of how Christians hear the Spirit–in community with each other. That being said, I find that many Protestants use the term “self-authenticating” as a magic formula to avoid thinking about the canonical process at all. If you challenge it, you are challenging Scripture somehow. I have trouble explaining this attitude so as to make sense of it, because I don’t think it does make sense.

Thank you Edwin for the thorough replies. I will take a little time and digest.

Peace!!!

 

[PRmerger]

It can be claimed that Tradition does not support the ordination of women, but aside from that, I’ve never heard of any concrete, observable proof that an ordained woman is different from an ordained man. I’ve heard it claimed, for example, that ordination leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the person ordained and that this can only happen with men, but I don’t know how this could be proven since it is not possible for us to see this indelible mark.

You can’t prove a male-only priesthood with concrete, observable evidence.

You use logic and reason and philosophical arguments.

I assume that you believe in God, yes, despite the conspicuously absent lack of concrete, observable evidence?

How do you prove God’s existence to an atheist?

Using…

logic, and reason and philosophical arguments.

At least, that’s the Catholic way.

And I believe most Lutherans here on this thread would use the same logic, reason and philosophical arguments were they in a discussion with an atheist. The very same arguments.

 

[Thorolfr]

You can’t prove a male-only priesthood with concrete, observable evidence.

You use logic and reason and philosophical arguments.

Whatever these logical, reason based and philosophical arguments are against the ordination of women, they don’t appear to be very convincing to millions of Christians and that probably includes a lot of Catholics as well.

 

[GKC]

To paraphrase Aragorn, now let us cry: “a plague on the stiff necks of mainline Protestants!”

‘Alas for the folly of these days!’

 

[PRmerger]

Whatever these logical, reason based and philosophical arguments are against the ordination of women, they don’t appear to be very convincing to millions of Christians and that probably includes a lot of Catholics as well.

What an astonishing thing for a Christian to say!

2000 years ago the Eternal Logos Himself, Logic Incarnate, walked this earth and was unable to convince all but a handful of folks.

So it’s not unreasonable to assume that logic and reasoned arguments today will still be unable to convince a lot of folks.

But I’m sure you agree, Thor, that it’s irrelevant whether “lots of” folks embrace a truth or not. If it’s true, then it’s true if one person believes it, millions of folks believe it, one person rejects it, or millions of folks reject it.

But I know you know that.

So it makes your comment above even more peculiar.