Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
But the laity (in general) don't have to submit to their diocesan bishop. Most members of the laity have never met their diocesan bishop.

Submission is only required to get orders or a lay license. Confirmation could be done with another bishop in person.

The rest of the time, it would be a pope in every parish as now.

---

Except if your male priest 'pope of your parish' was 'ordained' by a female 'Bishop'....

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
But the laity (in general) don't have to submit to their diocesan bishop. Most members of the laity have never met their diocesan bishop.

Submission is only required to get orders or a lay license. Confirmation could be done with another bishop in person.

The rest of the time, it would be a pope in every parish as now.

---

Except if your male priest 'pope of your parish' was 'ordained' by a female 'Bishop'....

---

I believe the majority of the laity would not care that much.

My church did not pass Resolution C but some members of the congregation have put themselves under the authority of +Ebbsfleet (sorry, I do not know the correct terminology). One of them was complaining today that nobody in church was discussing the Ordinariate and looked stunned at being told that the whole thing "seems rather petty" to another member of the congregation. My gut feeling is that the latter is more typical of the CofE laity in general.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:


As JPII made'infallibily' clear, the priesthood is reserved to males by God's law, and no one on earth can change that.

You not agree, you may not like it, but that's the Church's position.

---

It's not about me not liking it, or agreeing - I'm fairly confident my opinion on this matter is of no interest to His Holiness or the RC Church.

It's about a genuine desire to understand the situation. I hear your position, which is clear, but I also hear (and read) alternative possibilities, and I'm trying to get my head around that.

Where my 'liking it' becomes a bit more relevant is IF (again, a big if) you are wrong and other Roman Catholic commentators are right AND IF that then has an impact on the views of members of my own denomination. Are there people (let's call them the 'ecumenism objectors') who would change their mind about the OoW in the Church of England if that was to happen? Would that affect the views of other people? I'm sort of hoping that the answers to these questions will clarify some of the nuances of the anti-OoW position for me.

So I know that it's hypothetical, and I am sorry if my harping on the question annoys you. I certainly don't intend to imply disrespect to the Roman Catholic Church. I'm just trying to use the question to throw some light on the Anglican situation.

Anne

---

Not annoyed, honest!
The point I was trying to make, is not that I think it is wrong, but the Church (and God) says it is wrong. Yes, there are RC's who disagree, but unlike in the Anglican Church, their view point is not equally valid to the Church view. Whilst they can think what they wish, it is wrong, as it is not the Church position!! This sense of authority is something that the CofE lacks, hence the pickle it is in, trying to hold opposites togther. So in the CofE, you can hold a differeing view to the official CofE line (if there is such a thing) and could well argue that your point of view is equally valid as there is no 'authority' to say otherwise. Except of course, you say something that might be unkind to the Royal family, and then it is the stake for you (Bishop Pete )

That all said, if somehow things did change, (eg Jesus returned with Mary, and she said Mass say!)then yes, I think some Anglicans may change their position. However I do wonder where those with ecumenical oppostion are coming from. Yes OoW is a block to unity, but not the only one. If they are that concered about what the Church teaches, they may as well swim the Tiber! I do know some anglicans who say pubilically that they are ecumenically opposed, but in private would say they are impossibilists, but that is not a PC position to hold in public. This position does also assume that the ecumenical movement is only towards Rome, as the non-conformists have problems with the CofE not having women bishops eg the Methodists.

But I can't see it happening!

--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:


I do know some anglicans who say pubilically that they are ecumenically opposed, but in private would say they are impossibilists, but that is not a PC position to hold in public.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:


I do know some anglicans who say pubilically that they are ecumenically opposed, but in private would say they are impossibilists, but that is not a PC position to hold in public.

---

Well, I won't say that I'd never suspected this! Of course they are less likely to share this view with me.

Thanks for your patience.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
but ...God... says it is wrong.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
My apologies, perhaps I should stick to 'ministers' in future

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
At that's the point I was making Albertus, you say it is bollocks, others say your view is, who is right? The Church just makes it clear, and distinguishes between those rules which are man made eg celibacy and can be dispensed, and those of God which can not. Simple really.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
At that's the point I was making Albertus, you say it is bollocks, others say your view is, who is right? The Church just makes it clear, and distinguishes between those rules which are man made eg celibacy and can be dispensed, and those of God which can not. Simple really.

---

I think you may get fewer annoyed people (and annoyed replies, which are a subset of the above) if you phrased something akin to "the RC church says that God says." If you were talking to people who acknowledge the right of the RC church to speak for God, you wouldn't be having the conversation in the first place; as you're not, that appeal to authority is guaranteed to fall on deaf ears. Something to bear in mind.

- Chris.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
To say 'The Rc Church says' would suggest that I believe an alternative and probably opposing view would be equally valid, which I do not.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
To say 'The Rc Church says' would suggest that I believe an alternative and probably opposing view would be equally valid, which I do not.

---

No it wouldn't. To say, 'my church teaches, and I believe does so on divine authority', does not in the least concede anything to opposing views.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
To say 'The Rc Church says' would suggest that I believe an alternative and probably opposing view would be equally valid, which I do not.

---

No it wouldn't. To say, 'my church teaches, and I believe does so on divine authority', does not in the least concede anything to opposing views.

---

Sorry I left out the '....' after 'The RC Church says'. I do however disagree with your point, as if I had said the RC Church says why 'X then a response would be but the CofE says 'Y' - who is right, just like your 'bollocks' position. It is rather like Pilate and Jesus 'are you the King of the Jews' 'it you who say I'm the King of the Jews'? . Though too late in the evening to formulate it properly!!

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
To say 'The Rc Church says' would suggest that I believe an alternative and probably opposing view would be equally valid, which I do not.

---

No it wouldn't. To say, 'my church teaches, and I believe does so on divine authority', does not in the least concede anything to opposing views.

---

Sorry I left out the '....' after 'The RC Church says'. I do however disagree with your point, as if I had said the RC Church says why 'X then a response would be but the CofE says 'Y' - who is right, just like your 'bollocks' position. It is rather like Pilate and Jesus 'are you the King of the Jews' 'it you who say I'm the King of the Jews'? . Though too late in the evening to formulate it properly!!

---

Likewise, my example phrasing probably wasn't the best. But I do think Albertus has a point, in that it is possible to word in such a way that doesn't implicitly assume your opponent agrees with something they obviously don't.

From what you say, I get the message that you need an absolute standard of infallible divine revelation, or every theological debate devolves into "he says x, she says y." You feel that the RC church provides that, because of the divine authority of the Magisterium.

What I don't get is why you can't see that your acceptance of that divine authority had to be your own decision, based presumably on the church's (pontiffs, whatever) say so. To the Rest Of Us, that looks indistinguishable from a "he says" argument, with the added hubris of claiming, on their own authority and that of their predecessors, to speak for God.

If you accept the teaching, I'm sure it's perfectly self-consistent. But from the outside it looks very different. And I'm afraid as a debating tactic, it's self-defeating. is an absolute that is not testable or generally accepted still an absolute?

- Chris.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
That's the beauty of the Church I guess. I wasn't trying to make Albertus (or anyone else) believe something they do not, I was trying to explain to Anne I think, that ths Church has a different way of thinking than say the CofE, as the absolutes are (eternally) important. I think Albertus and his 'bollocks he does' was a very different way of seeing things (and an even worse debating tatic!).

I agree that I had to accept that something was Divine authority, but my acceptence or otherwise does not effect the absolute, as it is Divine. I could stubbornly refuse to accept that the world is round, but that wouldn't make the world flat. I may not accept that women can't be priests, but it doesn't change the Divine fact.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
I agree that I had to accept that something was Divine authority, but my acceptence or otherwise does not effect the absolute, as it is Divine. I could stubbornly refuse to accept that the world is round, but that wouldn't make the world flat. I may not accept that women can't be priests, but it doesn't change the Divine fact.

---

I would echo what anne said here: I included "testable" in my question about absolutes because I do strongly believe that there are absolute, unchanging truths out there - such as the Earth being round. It doesn't matter if I refuse to accept it, because there's a host of objective evidence (including photographs) to show that it is. I don't have to accept the word of anyone, even a scientist: I just have to look at the evidence. I think there is a clear distinction between arguments from evidence such as that, and arguments from authority, such as the one you are making about the RC church.

I hope I'm not stressing a point that you find obvious here, but to take a rather silly example: suppose I declared myself to have Divinely mandated authority, and decreed that women priest were ok. You response would, I imagine, be along the line of the aforementioned "bollocks." (although you may be politer ) You would have no reason to accept my authority based solely on my say-so, and to be frank, neither would anyone else. If I and my descendants continued making that truth claim, and attracted some followers, neither our numbers nor the length of time I had been making the claim would be sufficient to validate it.

The argument for accepting the word of the Pontiff on the ordination of women is not, as you argue, validated by their claim to represent the word of God on the issue. Their position is as strong as the reasons that anyone should accept that claim. In my previous (silly) example, there were no good reasons to accept my claim to authority, so my spurious appeal to my own authority was worthless. The RC church has a better, but not universally accepted, claim to authority. That authoirt is not a fact, but a belief which not all share (a bit like the existence of God, for which an identical argument could be made for both theists and atheists!).

However, I note that some who would describe themselves as (Roman) Catholic still dissent from the official line on women's ordination, for example the Catholic Theological Society of America, who in their report "Tradition and the ordination of women" stated

quote:

---

There are serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of this teaching and its grounds in Tradition. There is serious, widespread disagreement on this question not only among theologians, but also within the larger community of the Church. Once again, it seems clear, therefore, that further study, discussion, and prayer regarding this question by all the members of the Church in accord with their particular gifts and vocations are necessary if the Church is to be guided by the Spirit in remaining faithful to the authentic Tradition of the Gospel in our day.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
I agree that I had to accept that something was Divine authority, but my acceptence or otherwise does not effect the absolute, as it is Divine. I could stubbornly refuse to accept that the world is round, but that wouldn't make the world flat. I may not accept that women can't be priests, but it doesn't change the Divine fact.

---

I would echo what anne said here: I included "testable" in my question about absolutes because I do strongly believe that there are absolute, unchanging truths out there - such as the Earth being round. It doesn't matter if I refuse to accept it, because there's a host of objective evidence (including photographs) to show that it is. I don't have to accept the word of anyone, even a scientist: I just have to look at the evidence. I think there is a clear distinction between arguments from evidence such as that, and arguments from authority, such as the one you are making about the RC church.

I hope I'm not stressing a point that you find obvious here, but to take a rather silly example: suppose I declared myself to have Divinely mandated authority, and decreed that women priest were ok. You response would, I imagine, be along the line of the aforementioned "bollocks." (although you may be politer ) You would have no reason to accept my authority based solely on my say-so, and to be frank, neither would anyone else. If I and my descendants continued making that truth claim, and attracted some followers, neither our numbers nor the length of time I had been making the claim would be sufficient to validate it.

The argument for accepting the word of the Pontiff on the ordination of women is not, as you argue, validated by their claim to represent the word of God on the issue. Their position is as strong as the reasons that anyone should accept that claim. In my previous (silly) example, there were no good reasons to accept my claim to authority, so my spurious appeal to my own authority was worthless. The RC church has a better, but not universally accepted, claim to authority. That authoirt is not a fact, but a belief which not all share (a bit like the existence of God, for which an identical argument could be made for both theists and atheists!).

However, I note that some who would describe themselves as (Roman) Catholic still dissent from the official line on women's ordination, for example the Catholic Theological Society of America, who in their report "Tradition and the ordination of women" stated

quote:

---

There are serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of this teaching and its grounds in Tradition. There is serious, widespread disagreement on this question not only among theologians, but also within the larger community of the Church. Once again, it seems clear, therefore, that further study, discussion, and prayer regarding this question by all the members of the Church in accord with their particular gifts and vocations are necessary if the Church is to be guided by the Spirit in remaining faithful to the authentic Tradition of the Gospel in our day.

---

It seems that, even for those who do accept the authority of the RC church, the debate isn't as closed as you would have us believe.

- Chris.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
Now I admit the Church has shifted its position on things, like the earth not actually being flat...

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
Now I admit the Church has shifted its position on things, like the earth not actually being flat...

---

No it hasn't. The Roman Catholic church never insisted that the earth was flat. That's a lie put about by anti-Christian propagandists in the USA in the 19th century.

None of what you say makes the slightest difference to the plain fact that if they chance their mind on the ordination of women they will find a form or words to reconcile their new position with what previous Popes said. Whatever previous Popes said.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
I believe the majority of the laity would not care that much.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Couple of discussions going on here, but to refer to the one with hereweare about the 'Divine fact', I want (unsurprisingly) to support what sanityman and Anne have said. The 'Divine fact' of the impossibility of OoW is an argument closer for hereweare and for those who agree with him (her?)about papal infallibility. We understand and respect that. We see why it's a closer for you. But we don't accept papal infallibility. We're not RCs. hereweare has to understand and accept that. We may be objectively wrong (though I don't think we are) but the appeal to the 'Divine fact' as hereweare puts it won't convince us. Mind you, I suspect that no argument that s/he puts will. So the best we can hope for is that we understand each other's position. There's no point us trying to convince hereweare that s/he's wrong, or vice versa.

---

I understand that you are not RC's, but as I said above, the issue is the nature of Church, ie who does have the authority to speak for God.

If you recall this tangent started becuause it was claimed the RC Church would change her position. I pointed out the facts (divine or otherwise)that are in black and white, or at least white and yellow, so whether you accept it not is not an issue. I was highlighting that the Church is clear on the issue whether its members agree or not. I'm sure there is another DH thread to argue on what is the Church (and I think we may disagree!!!).I'm not trying to convert here just saying how it is.

The problem I do have though, that it would appear that your or an individual's opinion is some how equal to the teaching authority of the Church. The Pope can't have infallibility, but an individual can, hence the 'bollocks' remark? As I said, this is really a debate the nature and authority of the Church, which I am sure is covered in some other DH thread.

But to bring this back to the OP, it would have been far better for the CofE to have said in 1992 that we are going to ordain women, if you don't like it, here's the door (however unChristian that would be) but it didn't, as it didn't have that authority. It stated both here in the UK and in through out the Communion (Windsor statement IIRC) that those opposed had a honoured and lasting place. It should of course be remembered that those anti-OoW hadn't chnaged their belief but the CofE had. So no wonder those opposed feel that the rug is being pulled from underneath them.

--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Albertus - whilst I am generally inclined to agree with you and anne (I think), I'm not sure your summary was exactly what hereweare was saying. Rather that s/he was saying something as though the pope were to have said "I can - under certain limited conditions - declare things infallibly. But this isn't one of them as there are external constraints that don't allow me to do that".

Still, that is for hereweare to confirm or deny.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
If you recall this tangent started becuause it was claimed the RC Church would change her position. I pointed out the facts (divine or otherwise)that are in black and white, or at least white and yellow, so whether you accept it not is not an issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
So no wonder those opposed feel that the rug is being pulled from underneath them.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
If you recall this tangent started becuause it was claimed the RC Church would change her position. I pointed out the facts (divine or otherwise)that are in black and white, or at least white and yellow, so whether you accept it not is not an issue.

---

But it isn't "the facts". Because sooner or later this Pope and the others around him will be dead, other people will be defining doctrine, and if they want to do things differently they just will and there is nothing in practice the current Pope can do to bind them. That's just the way things are. If in those future days it is still important to them to seem to be not contradicting the pronouncements of dead popes then those future Catholics will be able to choose to re-interpret what he said in ways that he would not have intended.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
So no wonder those opposed feel that the rug is being pulled from underneath them.

---

Except that they haven't and the most of rest of the Church of England is still bending over backwards to accommodate them.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:
4) The argument that OoW and/or women bishops will reduce or eliminate the potential re-integration of the CofE with the Roman Catholic Church (or recognition of orders) won't go over well with the average bum-on-a-pew, who wants nothing to do with the Pope or the RCs. To many, one of the defining characteristics of the CofE is that it is NOT RC.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
If you recall this tangent started becuause it was claimed the RC Church would change her position. I pointed out the facts (divine or otherwise)that are in black and white, or at least white and yellow, so whether you accept it not is not an issue.

---

But it isn't "the facts". Because sooner or later this Pope and the others around him will be dead,

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
Again Ken I have to ask you, what eveidence have you to support your first statement? Could you say, give an example where a doctrine concerning faith or morals been over turned by a subsequent Pope?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
Again Ken I have to ask you, what eveidence have you to support your first statement? Could you say, give an example where a doctrine concerning faith or morals been over turned by a subsequent Pope?

---

Well one example is Usury totally immoral according to RC teaching but I wonder what Diocese actually doesn't pay interest or recieve interest on money in a bank?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
If you recall this tangent started becuause it was claimed the RC Church would change her position. I pointed out the facts (divine or otherwise)that are in black and white, or at least white and yellow, so whether you accept it not is not an issue.

---

But it isn't "the facts". Because sooner or later this Pope and the others around him will be dead,

---

I agree but the way that Popes appoints the future electorate all but guarantees for the forseeable future (15+ years) that significant change is not going to happen. A secret 'liberal' may get to be Pope but I find this very unlikely.

---

ah, truth is eternal!

--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
[QUOTE]The Diocese of A&B at least however lends without interest. Whilst I could look it up I'm sure, could you quote the appropriate canon? Thanks!

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
[QUOTE]The Diocese of A&B at least however lends without interest. Whilst I could look it up I'm sure, could you quote the appropriate canon? Thanks!

---

Even a renegade RC like myself has heard of the 3rd Lateran council and being an Ecumencical council has some weight but a number of Popes also spoke against Usury. I personally use the magic of google it is a very useful tool for looking things I suggest you try it. If you do you should find the clause that excomunicates those who use Usury.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:

The problem I do have though, that it would appear that your or an individual's opinion is some how equal to the teaching authority of the Church. The Pope can't have infallibility, but an individual can, hence the 'bollocks' remark? As I said, this is really a debate the nature and authority of the Church, which I am sure is covered in some other DH thread.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:

The problem I do have though, that it would appear that your or an individual's opinion is some how equal to the teaching authority of the Church. The Pope can't have infallibility, but an individual can, hence the 'bollocks' remark? As I said, this is really a debate the nature and authority of the Church, which I am sure is covered in some other DH thread.

---

No. I don't hold that an individual's opinion is equal to the teaching authority of the Church. But having teaching authority is a long way from the ability to speak directly for God, infallibly. And while I am a long way from being one of the sola scriptura gang, as a good Anglican I believe that Scripture contains all thigns necessary for salvation, so to place something like the Assumption on a par with the divinity of Christ as an article of belief strikes me as verging on blasphemy. I do deny that the Pope has infallibility, but this does not mean that I think that anybody else is infallible.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
No change in the teaching there then....

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
No change in the teaching there then....

---

If you had read what I had posted which I begin to wonder if you do then would have noticed I said there was a change in practice where Usury the giving and recieving interest is widely practiced by Roman Catholics. practice and theology are divergent.

The same applies to married Priests the theology that lay behind the Gegorian reforms was that men were unclean if they came into 'contact' with their wives and hence couldn't celebrate mass. Teh modern day theology behind priestly celibacy is quite different.

The RC church has been quite good at keeping the forms of believe around but in practice they are abandoned. I agree with you I do not see the RC church taking on female priests but I do see they expanding the practice of male married priests.

---

Yes I had read and understood what you posted, but the point I was making, was that teaching had not changed. In fact Benedict seems to have firmed it up (as you point out there may be case to answer between differential between theory and practice). I can't agree with your understanding of the history of celibacy though, the theology goes way back before then. I think the 'unclean' bit etc. has more to do protestant parody of Catholic theology then the whole truth (there may be a grain though ) However that is a disscussion for another thread.

Anyway, as mentioned, celibacy is a human law not a divine one, so could, and has been changed, unlike the OoW. Which is a long winded way of saying that I think we agree!!!!

--------------------
Come home to Rome this Christmas!

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
Anyway, as mentioned, celibacy is a human law not a divine one, so could, and has been changed, unlike the OoW. Which is a long winded way of saying that I think we agree!!!!

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
Anyway, as mentioned, celibacy is a human law not a divine one, so could, and has been changed, unlike the OoW. Which is a long winded way of saying that I think we agree!!!!

---

Pardon my ignorance, but could you give us a quick run-down of why you believe that the RC church's stance on OoW is "divine" but that on celibacy is "human"? This seems to be a key point in your argument, and I've heard it argued different ways by different RCs, so I don't think I understand where you are coming from here.

- Chris.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Pardon my ignorance, but could you give us a quick run-down of why you believe that the RC church's stance on OoW is "divine" but that on celibacy is "human"? This seems to be a key point in your argument, and I've heard it argued different ways by different RCs, so I don't think I understand where you are coming from here.

- Chris.

---

Coz the Pope said so! See JPII above.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
The obligation of celibacy for Latin rite priests is a matter of discipline,not doctrine.It is felt to be in the best interests of the Church for the clergy to be celibate and be available for the faithful without the 'encumbrances' of wife and family in order that they may devote themselves 100% to the Church.That is the theory,if not the practice.It is no part of doctrine.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
The obligation of celibacy for Latin rite priests is a matter of discipline,not doctrine.It is felt to be in the best interests of the Church for the clergy to be celibate and be available for the faithful without the 'encumbrances' of wife and family in order that they may devote themselves 100% to the Church.That is the theory,if not the practice.It is no part of doctrine.

Papal 'infallibility' has however never be invoked to declare that it is impossible for women to be ordained,so there is no real difficulty about the Church possibly coming to the view that women might be ordained to the priesthood,even if a pope has said it is not possible.However at the moment it is definitely not on the cards and that is a matter of discipline for those who are members of the Catholic church.the bishops of the Catholic church are not 'episcopi vagantes' and simply cannot ordain women to the priesthood.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Pardon my ignorance, but could you give us a quick run-down of why you believe that the RC church's stance on OoW is "divine" but that on celibacy is "human"? This seems to be a key point in your argument, and I've heard it argued different ways by different RCs, so I don't think I understand where you are coming from here.

- Chris.

---

Coz the Pope said so! See JPII above.

---

Again: I thought it was the case that the pope was not dogmatically infallible unless speaking ex cathedra - which he wasn't on this occasion. I can understand that the RC church has painted itself into a corner should it wish to have second thoughts on the Immaculate Conception, but I wasn't under the impression that OoW was cut from that cloth, and some RCs seem to agree (see also what Forthview said).

Your comments about gender strike me as a little... odd. I feel there's a lot of philosophical views implicit in both what your saying and the RC official stance which are never aired in the usual debates. I understand the objections to female priests from someone who holds your view of the priesthood well enough (I think!) - but even if I did hold those views, which I'm afraid I don't, I don't think the conclusion that women priests are invalid follows without a lot of supplementary assumptions about the nature and spiritual significance of gender. I'd say "extra-biblical," but that might betray my evangelical roots!

- Chris.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian1:
I think the promises made to "traditionalists" in 1992 and 1993 were made in good faith and I don't think there's any just reason to suspect otherwise. However times change and once women had been ordained priest the question of their eventual consecration as bishops (though not provided for by the 1992 Measure) was unlikely to go away.

Also the ordination of women was rigorously debated both in and out of synod for a number of years before the vote taken and the Measure passed. Those opposed knew for a long time what could - and very probably would - happen and it can hardly be claimed that they were taken unawares. Now we are faced with the very real possibility of women bishops a few years from now if the current Synod decides to legislate for it and those opposed will have to make some sort of decisive decision as to how they intend to deal with it.

Personally it's a difficult one for me. I'm very pro women priests and bishops, not minding the reality of the first or the prospect of the second at all. However I have a lady friend who won't attend Communion, much less receive, if a woman's celebrating. Understanding her difficulty with women celebrants, borne of deep conviction, has helped me to see both sides of the question as it were. For what it's worth I wouldn't wish to continue as a member of a church which left those who couldn't accept the ordination or consecration of women in a position where they felt excluded.

Although it's not a solution I'd have advocated a few years ago, I'm increasingly beginning to think that a non-geographical Third Province is the only honourable and honest solution. Joining Rome or the Ordinariate may be a solution for some traditionalists, but neither course is unlikely to appeal to MOTR ones who value their Anglican identity and like 1662.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by hereweare:
See also CCC 2269 para 2

and

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church quotes John Paul II from a Feb. 3, 2004, general catechesis. There, the Pope calls for a commitment “not to practice usury — a plague that is a disgraceful reality even in our days that can place a stronghold on the lives of many people.”
The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated at the beginning of Benedict’s pontificate, seems to broaden the sense of usury even more. One of the answers to the question (508) “What is forbidden by the seventh commandment?” is:

“Also forbidden is tax evasion or business fraud; willfully damaging private or public property; usury; corruption; the private abuse of common goods; work deliberately done poorly; and waste.”

No change in the teaching there then....

---

That's exactly the sort of legalistic fudge that they will be able to come out with on ordination of women if they also change their minds on that. You are proving my point exactly. If they can redefine the Ten Commandments they can trivially work round the inconvenient utterances of a previous Pope.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adrian1:

Although it's not a solution I'd have advocated a few years ago, I'm increasingly beginning to think that a non-geographical Third Province is the only honourable and honest solution.

---