Yes, but my answer was in response to this:
That wasn’t about Episcopalians.
- Status
A
AlNg
Guest
The woman with the 10 objections is or was an Episcopalian priest. So when she is at the altar, the wafers are not Consecrated Hosts. When a Roman Catholic woman is at the altar celebrating the Communion Service, she is using Consecrated Hosts. At the Communion Service I was at, there was a an altar table in the Church and the woman was at that altar table with the Consecrated Hosts. She was saying prayers at the altar and was holding up the Consecrated Host at the altar. It seems to me to be a stretch for you to claim that the Roman Catholic woman celebrating the Communion Service at the altar was not at the altar.
But even supposing that you were right, and the Roman Catholic woman who was leading the Communion Service at the altar with the Consecrated Hosts was not at the altar, still, if a woman is at the altar, everyone in their right mind still knows the distinction between life and death. At the time of death, there is no pulse, the heart stops, there is no breathing, there are no brainwaves, the person is brought to the morgue, has a funeral and is buried in the ground at the cemetery. That is distinct from the person who is alive. The live person can eat fresh vegetables and drink water, can walk around, is breathing, has a pulse, and generally can talk and interact with his neighbors and with his friends on the internet. Whether or not a woman is at the altar, will have no effect on whether or not a person can make the distinction between life and death. The criteria for determining who is alive and who is dead will be exactly the same and will remain unchanged whether a woman is at the altar or whether a woman is not at the altar. I don’t see how there will be any blurring of the distinction between who is alive or who is dead when a woman is at the altar.
IOW the above might be a possible counterargument to the claim:
10. A female at the altar blurs the biblical distinction between life and death.
Last edited:
That’s the correct Catholic perspective.
But from an Episcopalian point of view, which I suppose she holds because she’s still Episcopalian, when she was at the altar and celebrating the Eucharist, she was actually consecrating the hosts. Whether anything happens at a non-Catholic consecration or not is not really the point here; the point is what she thinks she was doing, and why she was uncomfortable doing it.
Precisely. She doesn’t consecrate the hosts herself.
What is debated here is not as much what physical spot of the sanctuary a woman may or may not occupy, but rather whether a woman may stand at the altar and perform the necessary rites in order to consecrate the hosts. That’s what “being at the altar” is shorthand for.
The point of that distinction is that the eucharistic liturgy makes present again Christ’s sacrifice, His passion, His death and His resurrection. They are re-presented through the priest who acts “in the person of Christ”. As the CCC says, “in the Eucharistic sacrifice the whole of creation loved by God is presented to the Father through the death and the Resurrection of Christ” (1359).
What she says in the article is this :
It is not about being able to tell whether someone is alive or not. It’s about how both genders, in Biblical anthropology, relate to life and death in a different way.
A
AlNg
Guest
Sorry, but the Episcopalian point of view is wrong.
There are a whole lot of pictures all over the internet showing Sarah Palin hunting in Alaska. I hesitate to post them here because no doubt someone will flag them as being violently graphic and cruel.
Last edited:
H
hope
Guest
The more things change the more things stay the same. Women have always been in the position of ruling such as Cleopatra. Things do change but that which cannot change does not. Women cannot be priest and that won’t change.
Y
yankeesouth
Guest
Well this one has been answered. Time and again. It’s like the footprints when the person asks Jesus there are only one set of footprints where were you? And Jesus says I was carrying you. The difficulty in not understanding is not with Jesus, it is with us. Modernism, feminism, the re-definition of marriage…
Y
yankeesouth
Guest
Here is another good study…
catholicproductions.com
They offer a free outline here but it is well worth listening to the whole study…
The Woman at the Well and the Love of Christ
Dr. Brant Pitre's Bible Study of John uncovers the love of Jesus Christ, as seen with the woman at the well. Learn about the Samaritans and "the living water."
catholicproductions.com
They offer a free outline here but it is well worth listening to the whole study…
G
goout
Guest
??? not the way I’d describe Our Lord but ok.
[/quote]
Ummm. That was kinda the point.
[/quote]
Ummm. That was kinda the point.
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
God was silent during the Great Schism.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
No it’s not.
It’s in Western Asia.
When the Asian Games first started, Israel was counted as a member. Now it no longer participates due to objections from the Muslim countries.
Israel - Wikipedia
A
Anesti33
Guest
Halfway across the world… He roared.
Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument (U.S. National Park Service)
The lava flow lies on the land like a dream, a wonderland of rock. A thousand years ago the ground was torn open and lava erupted into the sky, forever changing the landscape and the lives of the people who lived here. A thousand years later, trees and flowers grow among the rocks, and people...
www.nps.gov
At Hastings, He changed history forever.
Norman Conquest | Definition, Summary, & Facts
Norman Conquest, the military conquest of England by William, duke of Normandy, primarily effected by his decisive victory at the Battle of Hastings (October 14, 1066) and resulting ultimately in profound political, administrative, and social changes in the British Isles.
www.britannica.com
A new star formed in the sky, and then was snuffed out.
SN 1054 - Wikipedia
Last edited:
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
Yet he allowed the Great Schism to occur
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I wish he hadn’t done that.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Possibly a good juncture for a skillful alternate history. Bernard Cornwell, maybe.
Hmmm… Lanfranc.
Hmmm… Lanfranc.
S
stpurl
Guest
Permissive will. . He also allowed the Arian heresy along with various other heresies, in addition to the run-of-the-mill allowing people to die from being murdered, etc.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I remember reading one where Harold turns down the crown in favour of Edgar who sweeps all before him. Not very convincing — and definitely not skilful.
“Very well, young man,” smiled Harold. “If you take the crown I shall be with you!” The Earl drew his sword and laid it in the Atheling’s lap. “Yours to command, lord,” he said nobly.
Well, perhaps not quite that bad, but not much better.
G
GKMotley
Guest
It’s gonna take talent and background knowledge, no doubt.
- Status