Rome tells Anglicans: it's time to decide if you are Protestants or Catholics

[Camron]

One word- Shekhinah.

How about these words, “God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.” Or perhaps these words might suffice too, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

If your argument is that Shekhinah is used in the feminine, you will get no argument from me. God is described using feminine characteristics in the Old Testament, such as in the Wisdom literature or in the Psalms. Jesus even uses the description of a mother bird trying to gather her chicks when describing Himself.

But does this now prove that the ordination of women in the 20th and 21st Centuries is now considered acceptable?

No, it does not.

The only thing it proves is that many people in our modern era have sadly become so wrapped up in supposed human rights violations that they have lost sight of what God Himself called for in the first place.

To turn the question around on you, why is it SOOOO horrible for women to not serve God through the Priesthood?

By the way, you don’t actually have a good answer to this question, except for a supposed claim to some vague form of human rights violation, which it is not.

While I would personally like to see the deaconess role re-investigated (and some would consider me “liberal” for even thinking this), there is simply no way that the Catholic Church will ever give their consent to the ordination of woman as priests. It’s not going to happen no matter how many times the next generation forgets that the Church already spoke on this matter.

This, by the way, is a major sticking point between Catholic and Anglican ecumenical dialogues too, so it seems relevant to this discussion.

Edwin, do you have anything to offer on this?

 

[Camron]

Right there is the main idea- we are ALL insufficient in the eyes of God, regardless of gender. NO ONE is holy enough to properly serve God 100%, regardless of gender.

His argument frankly is just weak. If women are not equal to serve God in the priesthood, then their Sacramental lives should also be viewed and officially described as inadequate. We are all equal members of the Priesthood of believers, or we are not.

There’s no doubt in my mind that, in spiritual sense, our spirits are feminine in the eyes of God. But we’re talking about the flesh, in relation to the Theology of the Body, how God has created man and women with physically different biological traits for the generation of the family and how this also points toward Christ and His Bride the Church. In other words, what is transpiring on a physical level teaches us something about the spiritual level.

Woman is to man as all of humanity is to God.

This is not a complicated theology to master. Neither does it make out women to be less than man. Man is dependent on woman for their survival, just as women are dependent on men for their survival, which is where the spiritual analogy breaks down.

You can reject this if you wish. But you are not rejecting it for sound theological reasons. You are rejecting it because of supposed infringements on the human rights of women. In other words, you simply don’t like being told what you can and cannot do. But these two things should not be confused with one another. They are totally different things.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

How about these words, “God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.” Or perhaps these words might suffice too, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

If your argument is that Shekhinah is used in the feminine, you will get no argument from me. God is described using feminine characteristics in the Old Testament, such as in the Wisdom literature or in the Psalms. Jesus even uses the description of a mother bird trying to gather her chicks when describing Himself.

But does this now prove that the ordination of women in the 20th and 21st Centuries is now considered acceptable?

No, it does not.

The only thing it proves is that many people in our modern era have sadly become so wrapped up in supposed human rights violations that they have lost sight of what God Himself called for in the first place.

To turn the question around on you, why is it SOOOO horrible for women to not serve God through the Priesthood?

By the way, you don’t actually have a good answer to this question, except for a supposed claim to some vague form of human rights violation, which it is not.

While I would personally like to see the deaconess role re-investigated (and some would consider me “liberal” for even thinking this), there is simply no way that the Catholic Church will ever give their consent to the ordination of woman as priests. It’s not going to happen no matter how many times the next generation forgets that the Church already spoke on this matter.

This, by the way, is a major sticking point between Catholic and Anglican ecumenical dialogues too, so it seems relevant to this discussion.

Edwin, do you have anything to offer on this?

I think to confine God to a box in which we can manipulate God is a major sin, or atleast an egotistical sticking point. God is genderless, just as God is immaterial; the Shekhinah is the Presence of God, and it is feminine. He reigns over the Earth, and He is present throughout His creation.

Why is it so horrible not to allow women to serve? Because they are made unequal partners in this equitable community established by Jesus Christ. Women flocked to Christianity for a reason, because all were said to be equal in God’s eyes (women and men especially).

But seriously, if this issue is such a major cause of schism in the world, then I firmly believe that Christianity will fail. What is more important- women in priest robes or JESUS CHRIST’S ESSENTIAL MINISTRY? He never prohibited women, male-dominated (small t) traditions did.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Also, to say that Mary Magdalene was not an apostle is almost insulting to her wonderful life (note: I detest the Da Vinci Code conspiracy nuts). She was just as much a servant of Christ and an Apostle of the Lord as any of the 12.

Women played an ESSENTIAL role in Christ’s ministry.

 

[mercygate]

Also, to say that Mary Magdalene was not an apostle is almost insulting to her wonderful life (note: I detest the Da Vinci Code conspiracy nuts). She was just as much a servant of Christ and an Apostle of the Lord as any of the 12.

Women played an ESSENTIAL role in Christ’s ministry.

Given the subject of this thread, there seems to be no question in your mind about which side of the Protestant/Catholic divide you are on.

I was one of the first 3 women admitted to General Theological Seminary to the M.Div. program. Even in those days, I understood the problem with the push for women in priesthood and never supported it, which made me something of a three-headed monster to other women there. Moreover, the whole movement for women in priesthood in the Episcopal Church was driven by the unabashed and publicly stated desire for power. It was systematically engineered as a political effort and totally “rights based.” The game plan was to take out the dead-White-European-Patriarchal leadership of the Episcopal Church. And to give them credit, they succeeded.

I applaud you, Roamin! You are honest in leaving the Catholic Church rather than pressing this exhausted, fruitless agenda from iinside.

 

[emeraldcoast]

Also, to say that Mary Magdalene was not an apostle is almost insulting to her wonderful life (note: I detest the Da Vinci Code conspiracy nuts). She was just as much a servant of Christ and an Apostle of the Lord as any of the 12.

Women played an ESSENTIAL role in Christ’s ministry.

I agree! I am a member of an Episcopal Church that has a woman as an assistant rector and what a blessing it is to have her.

IMHO-- I am sure that it would be “strange” for someone that is not use to a woman minister giving a homily to hear it at first.

God Bless!

 

[Camron]

I think to confine God to a box in which we can manipulate God is a major sin, or at least an egotistical sticking point.

Then stop trying to stick God in the box of egalitarian human rights issues and allow Him to be God. God doesn’t live in a box period. He is present throughout His creation.

God is genderless, just as God is immaterial; the Shekhinah is the Presence of God, and it is feminine. He reigns over the Earth, and He is present throughout His creation.

Then why are you saying that He is present throughout His creation?

This isn’t just a minor sticking point, some minor antiquated artifact of a male-dominated language system that needs to be done away with. Jesus, as True God and True Man, was a man. And it was in His footsteps that He called many men, notably 12 apostles among many.

Why is it so horrible not to allow women to serve? Because they are made unequal partners in this equitable community established by Jesus Christ.

How does not allowing women to serve as priests make them unequal partners in this equitable community established by Jesus Christ?

Women flocked to Christianity for a reason, because all were said to be equal in God’s eyes (women and men especially).

And they are equal in regards to the potential for salvation. In fact, I would say that more women are “saved” in Christ then men are, if you want to use that language. But that doesn’t mean that equality means having the same exact authority. Men and women are not equal. They think differently right down to how their brains are mapped, with women being more multitasking orientated and men being generally more single minded and utilitarian on their thinking. In fact, men and women are different right down to every single chromosome in their body.

Men and women are not equal. Men and women are balanced with each other as God made them to be. And the only way that true equality can be had is by seeking a balance and harmony with each other through God.

But seriously, if this issue is such a major cause of schism in the world, then I firmly believe that Christianity will fail.

Many people have made claims like this before. They’re gone but God is still here.

God is dead.

Friedrich Nietzsche
​

---

Friedrich Nietzsche is dead.

God

------------​

What is more important- women in priest robes or JESUS CHRIST’S ESSENTIAL MINISTRY? He never prohibited women, male-dominated (small t) traditions did.

And what historical evidence do you have of this?

I mean no disrespect, but that’s a pretty serious claim you’ve made. Perhaps you could start a new thread about it. There are many well informed Catholics (and Orthodox and Protestants too) here who could offer some advice and oodles of information on how incorrect that claim you’ve made really is.

In the meantime we are trying to discuss Rome telling Anglicans that it’s time to decide if they are Protestants or Catholics.

 

[Camron]

And C. S. Leiws was right.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

For the record, I like C. S. Lewis a lot, even if I don’t agree with everything he says.

 

[GKC]

For the record, I like C. S. Lewis a lot, even if I don’t agree with everything he says.

I’ve been a Lewis collector for around 45 years. I agree with almost everything he says.

GKC

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I’ve been a Lewis collector for around 45 years. I agree with almost everything he says.

GKC

Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Charles Williams? I’m a bit of a fawning fan. And what with his book “Descent of the Dove”, perhaps he’d be relevant to the discussion too (though based on DotD, he would probably argue that the question of Anglican union with Rome or any other church is ridiculous–whether or not we wish to believe we are one in the Spirit will not change the fact that we are already one in the Spirit, one in the Church, one in Christ).

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[GKC]

Grace & Peace!

Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on Charles Williams? I’m a bit of a fawning fan. And what with his book “Descent of the Dove”, perhaps he’d be relevant to the discussion too (though based on DotD, he would probably argue that the question of Anglican union with Rome or any other church is ridiculous–whether or not we wish to believe we are one in the Spirit will not change the fact that we are already one in the Spirit, one in the Church, one in Christ).

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Williams I’ve only collected for about 44 years. I have to admit, I find him more problematic than Lewis, less so than Owen Barfield. It’s been years since I read DoTD, and I’d have to skim it again to make a reasonably informed comment, but what you say seems right. The one point I do recall about my impression of Williams was that he was doctrinally the loosest of those folks I collect (Lewis, Belloc, Chesterton, Tolkien, Williams, Sayers, Dawson, Lunn, Knox).

GKC

 

[mercygate]

Williams I’ve only collected for about 44 years. I have to admit, I find him more problematic than Lewis, less so than Owen Barfield. It’s been years since I read DoTD, and I’d have to skim it again to make a reasonably informed comment, but what you say seems right. The one point I do recall about my impression of Williams was that he was doctrinally the loosest of those folks I collect (Lewis, Belloc, Chesterton, Tolkien, Williams, Sayers, Dawson, Lunn, Knox).

GKC

Hey! This would make a nifty thread – those mid-20th-Century English Christian writers.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Williams I’ve only collected for about 44 years. I have to admit, I find him more problematic than Lewis, less so than Owen Barfield…The one point I do recall about my impression of Williams was that he was doctrinally the loosest of those folks I collect (Lewis, Belloc, Chesterton, Tolkien, Williams, Sayers, Dawson, Lunn, Knox).

I think his time with the AE Waite crowd may have had something to do with that (though even the AE Waite crowd was nothing to shake a stick at–I like Underhill, for instance, and I would even consider Waite a curiously faithful Anglican). To be honest, though, given Williams’ influence over Lewis (much to Tolkein’s chagrin!) I sometimes wonder if Lewis is not somehow playing Plato to Williams’ Socrates–I wonder if we don’t get a good view of Williams’ theology through Lewis’ writing.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[GKC]

Hey! This would make a nifty thread – those mid-20th-Century English Christian writers.

I’m available.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Grace & Peace!

I think his time with the AE Waite crowd may have had something to do with that (though even the AE Waite crowd was nothing to shake a stick at–I like Underhill, for instance, and I would even consider Waite a curiously faithful Anglican). To be honest, though, given Williams’ influence over Lewis (much to Tolkein’s chagrin!) I sometimes wonder if Lewis is not somehow playing Plato to Williams’ Socrates–I wonder if we don’t get a good view of Williams’ theology through Lewis’ writing.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

And a little of Barfield’s.

No doubt Williams’ experiences with the Golden Dawn reflected in his writings; that’s partly what I meant. And it doesn’t make me worry, overly. But I recall scribbling in the margin of a book of essays on Tolkien, Lewis and Williams that Williams was the most problematic of the three.

Still, I collect him. Even made it through REGION OF THE SUMMER STARS and TALIESSIN THROUGH LOGRES. Took 3 times.

GKC

 

[mercygate]

And a little of Barfield’s.

No doubt Williams’ experiences with the Golden Dawn reflected in his writings; that’s partly what I meant. And it doesn’t make me worry, overly. But I recall scribbling in the margin of a book of essays on Tolkien, Lewis and Williams that Williams was the most problematic of the three.

Still, I collect him. Even made it through REGION OF THE SUMMER STARS and TALIESSIN THROUGH LOGRES. Took 3 times.

GKC

Ahhh. Memories of a mis-spent youth! How I enjoyed all of that!

 

[GKC]

Ahhh. Memories of a mis-spent youth! How I enjoyed all of that!

I hope you made it through more quickly.

GKC

 

[comfort1st]

I think this discussion needs to be moved.

To put Christians under a banner of “other religions” or “other faiths” just because they don’t toe the Roman line is arrogant, offensive and insulting.

 

[chris_molter]

I think this discussion needs to be moved.

To put Christians under a banner of “other religions” or “other faiths” just because they don’t toe the Roman line is arrogant, offensive and insulting.

Calling Catholics “Romans” is itself rather offensive and insulting.

If you want to take issue with the placement of Anglican discussions in the “non-Catholic Religions” forum, that sounds like something that should be discussed with the folks running the forums, not us lowly peasants

 

[RC_Matt]

I think this discussion needs to be moved.

To put Christians under a banner of “other religions” or “other faiths” just because they don’t toe the Roman line is arrogant, offensive and insulting.

If you find those of us who “tow the Roman line” so annoying, perhaps you should move over to the Baptist board. They have an exact equivalent to this forum, only they call it “False Religions.” I’m sure they’d love to hear what you have to say.