|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A decision to cross the Tiber
|
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
There is only one certainty in this life - and that is death.
Amongst those coming into the community there was only one catechumen,the others being already baptised.
Actually the question of women priests never came up .No asked about it.
As you will no doubt agree Catholic doctrine as such does not change,but we sometimes come to clearer understandings of the teachings of the Church.It was not for me to state that the Church
will never admit women into the priesthood. We know for example that a Czech bishop ordained women in exceptional circumstances to the sacred priesthood and it is possible that these circumstances might arise again.
The Czech bishop in question did no such thing. They were lay women before the "ceremony" and they remained lay women after the "ceremony". Invalid matter is invalid matter; he may as well have tried to ordain a tree or a car or a horse.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Apostolicae curae etc. To those for whom valid orders are a concern, every Anglican must acknowledge those of Rome, but no RC is permitted to return the favor.
Yes, but so?
quote:
quote:
Widening? It doesn't look like that from where I'm sitting.
Then from where you're sitting you must be able to see RC bishops secretly ordaining and consecrating women.
I've seen RC bishops - including an actual Pope on TV - worshipping in Anglican churches. I've seen the new RC Catechism which recognises Protestant churches as churches. I've seen & attended joint services with RC and Protestant ministers co-operating to lead them. I've read papers written by the present Pope that are nearer to Protestant ecclesiology than anything since the Reformation. I've seen even Evangelical Anglican churches, and Methodist ones too, use a form of Eucharistic service that no-one but a liturgy geek could tell from the current RC Mass in English if it wasn't for a few Hail Marys here and there and prayers for the Pope (and my local Anglo-Catholic parish church has those as well). That is literally true - I've seen Polish and Hungarian and Czech visitors to London walk into our low-church evangelical Anglican church and not notice that it was Protestant until they were talking to us after the service. I've attended RC masses and been able to follow the words without a book. Just last week I went to both Cathedrals in Liverpool and their bookshops were selling books about the other one. I've seen (again on TV) the Roman and Anglican bishops of that city leading joint services. I've seen a Presbyterian church near Glasgow whose woman minister is married to a Catholic man. I've been in the house of my Mum's cousin in Glasgow, a Boy's Brigade leader and an elder of the Kirk, and he (or his Catholic wife) has an RC Missal on their shelves. On TV I've seen Taize brothers (technically Presbyterian) and RC bishops taking Communion together at the funerals of both the late Pope and of Brother Roger.
None of that would have happened a hundred years ago. Most of it would have been impossible forty years ago. Yes, we are getting more like each other. The gap is narrowing.
If Martin Luther was alive today he'd probably be able to stay in communion with the Pope. If the present Pope had been alive in the 16th century with the theological opinions he has now he would almost certainly have become a Lutheran. Less divides Protestant and Catholic than ever before.
The ordination of women is a side-issue. Its a done deal in the Protestant churches and we are not going back on it. When Rome gets round to ordaining women - which they will one day and I would not be surprised if it was in my lifetime - the Vatican lawyers and legislative drafters will no doubt find a form of words to prove that it does not contradict the last few hundred years of teaching. They are good at that. Its what they do.
What really divides Protestant and Catholic is the papacy, and nothing else. The strange idea that the Church on earth needs a single human boss - whether he is the Bishop of Rome or anyone else. When they get over that one, the splits of the Reformation will be done with. Being human, we'll no doubt have found some other issues to fight about by then.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong: quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I want to belong to the undivided Church of the first millennium. The repository of this faith lies within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Does anyone else see the massive problem in the second sentence?...
Yes.
Why is unity more important than truth Paul?
It's not, hence Ken's assertions are tosh. All that has happened is that some theological misunderstandings have been cleared up and we can all stand in the same room without killing each other. Far worse theological divisions have now emerged though which have ended any prospect of successful true ecumenism with the Reformation churches. ARCIC III is a face saving exercise to spare the (further) humiliation of +Cantuar as Benedict quite likes him, on a personal level, but beyond that an utter waste of time. There will be no ARCIC IV.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Once I accepted the Mass as a Sacrifice for the living and the dead, the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine, the intercessions of the saints and praying for the repose of the souls of the departed, it became a logical step to become Catholic
I accept all those things. I would go further and accept Petrine ministry if wasn't so centralised.
But I remain an Anglican.
Many of my friends have joined the ordinariate - what amuses me is that they are, by their own admission' less 'catholic' than me.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
That depends what you mean by 'catholic'.Following a 'catholic'rite,teaching 'catholic' doctrine doesn't make one Catholic.Even wanting to be in communion with the successor of St Peter doesn't make one 'catholic'.
One can be in full communion with the successor of Peter and that is an essential part of what makes one fully Catholic.
In the question of the possible ordination of women to the hieratic priesthood I see nothing in the Gospels which necessarily rules this out.Certainly Jesus chose only men to be his apostles but does he tell us that he doesn't ever want women chosen for this role.
In instructing people who wish to enter full communion with the Catholic church I would never tell people that I think women ought to be ordained to the priesthood,but I would also not say that this could never be the case.
Again I accept that what the Czech bishop did in extreme conditions is not anything which would be approved of in the Vatican,but there may come a day when other bishops will petition the Holy See for permission to ordain women and this in spite of what Blessed John Paul has said so authoritatively.
Is the ordination of women something that the Church has not just thought of or is it something that we absolutely know that Jesus Christ did not want.
Being a Catholic and recognising the 'unique' nature of the Catholic church does not preclude recognising and valuing as authentic Christians others with differing points of view.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
One can be in full communion with the successor of Peter and that is an essential part of what makes one fully Catholic.
Yes, and being in full communion with Peter means accepting his teaching on those things which have been solemnly defined. And the ordination of women is unambiguously one of those things. If you continue to contest it, you are rejecting the very authority you are using to distinguish leo from yourself as a Catholic.
A defining part of what it is to be a Catholic is to accept that the Church has the divine authority to decide certain issues without error. The Church has defined this issue.
If when asked by one of your catechumens what the Church teaches on this issue you fail to say that the Church has definitively ruled out the ordination of women you are not teaching what the Church has entrusted you to teach. It's that simple.
Withhold as much credence from what the Church teaches as you see fit - you must act as your conscience dictates - but don't accept a position of teaching within the Church and then teach others that there is doubt in what the Church has authoritatively settled.
[ 05. July 2011, 18:07: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc, I accept fully and without any reservation all that the Church teaches in the historic creeds.
I accept further that the Church in its magisterial statements speaks the Word of God.
I accept that the successor of St Peter has the right to speak in the name of the whole Church and that he speaks infallibly when he does so in some way or another with the consent of the whole Church as when Pius XII solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption.
In instructing any possible candidates for reception into full communion with the Catholic Church I would never teach as Catholic doctrine anything which is not defined as such by the Church.That doesn't mean that I am personally infallible and I may slip in a few minor or major 'heresies' inadvertently,of course and for that I hope for the forgiveness of the Good Lord.
In 15 to 20 years of work in this field no-one has ever asked about the ordination of women. No-one has ever asked about homosexuality but lots of people have posed all sorts of questions on divorce,annulment,second marriages in church.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Alright, Forthview. I'm absolutely not someone you have to answer to, and appreciate your response.
My concern was that you implied that if asked you would not tell an enquirer that the Church has definitively (infallibly) ruled out the ordination of women to the priesthood. If you would in fact, despite whatever personal reservations you may have about this teasching (which really is none of my business), tell them what the Church has ruled on this issue I withdraw my criticism.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I accept all those things. I would go further and accept Petrine ministry if wasn't so centralised.
But I remain an Anglican.
Many of my friends have joined the ordinariate - what amuses me is that they are, by their own admission' less 'catholic' than me.
Far be it from me to criticise someone who wants to remain Anglican, after all, I did so myself for more than a decade while I had doubts growing in me about whether I could remain. But all the things which you claim to accept go against Anglican teaching. The sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead isn't to be found in authorised C of E material. Only by borrowing from the Catholic Church, can you incorporate these ideas into your worship.
I don't know in what context you are using the word "catholic" but your friends in the ordinariate who have come into communion with the See of Peter are much more Catholic than you are. Adopting a bit of Catholic liturgy and practice, while retaining the freedom of thought from the Protestant tradition, is what makes an Anglo-Catholic, because you've no need to obey anything you don't like. That may make you catholic, but certainly not Catholic.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Just as an aside, the interesting thing is that this is being talked about in quite a few places now, including in this article in the National Catholic Reporter, "Ordination Ban Not Infallibly Taught."
I don't know exactly what this publication is; it calls itself "The Independent News Source." But this topic has also been broached in "US Catholic": "Why Church Teaching on Women's Ordination Isn't Infallible ."
Just interesting, that's all; I haven't seen anything on this in what seem to be mainstream publications. (Of course, JPII's ban on even talking about it could be the reason!)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I don't know exactly what this publication is; it calls itself "The Independent News Source."
The NCR is "independent" in the sense that it feels free to dissent radically from Catholic teaching and praxis and is proud to do so. As such, what ever else it is, it can't properly be seen to be a Catholic source at all. The editorial you linked to has been eviscerated by several online Catholic sources, including Fr Z here - seriously, read that link to see just how wrong the NCR piece is.
The U.S. Catholic piece was so thin and inaccurate that it was refuted in toto by one of the first comments below it (Richard M's "Hello Mr McRory").
I'm not necessarily saying there are no coherent dissenting voices on this issue (wrong, but coherent and deserving of attention) - just that these really aren't them.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc - many thanks for your gracious words which are much appreciated.
CL - Catholic doctrine and practice can often seem harsh and intolerant both to outsiders as well as to those of the household of faith.It is incumbent upon us to interpret it with a maximum of charity.I entirely agree with you that what the Czech bishop did many years ago was outwith the bounds of canonical norms.However we have to look at his reasons - namely a love of the eucharist and a wish to make it available in appalling circumstances to as many of the faithful as possible.At that time Extraordinary ministers of the eucharist ,now reinstated,had been forgotten for centuries .The bishop would have known,I think, that a woman could bring the eucharist to the faithful.He would also have known,I think,that it would have been difficult for a table leg to celebrate the Eucharist and distribute the Sacred Species to the faithful.
As Catholics,who perhaps live in circumstances where the church does not suffer such difficulties,apart from those of her own making, we have to try to speak charitably of the said bishop.
Ken said that the church does not need one single 'boss' namely the pope.In religious terms,of course the pope is not the boss.God is the boss,Jesus Christ is the founder of the Church and the pope is the 'Servant of the servants of God.Anglicans,I think,recognise that,if the pope is to be seen as 'boss' so also is in each diocese of the Church of England the local bishop 'boss' in the same sense and indeed a 'boss' who before he (o she ?) can take up his(her) post has to swear allegiance to the secular 'boss',the English sovereign.In each individual parish the incumbent is also 'boss' In each case,however, that 'boss' is committed to the ministry of service of the faithful,the buiding up of the people of God on their way towards eternity.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
CL, I'm glad to see that you approved of my post so much you reposted it without comment ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
As for your later post about ARCIC, so what? Who really cares about ARCIC? That kind of bureaucratic centralist search for a form of words to cover over differences is certainly very Anglican (Some Archdeacons seem to be able to talk like that ex tempore) but it has little relevance to what has actually changed on the ground between individuals and local churches, which is what really counts.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I accept all those things. I would go further and accept Petrine ministry if wasn't so centralised.
But I remain an Anglican.
Many of my friends have joined the ordinariate - what amuses me is that they are, by their own admission' less 'catholic' than me.
Far be it from me to criticise someone who wants to remain Anglican, after all, I did so myself for more than a decade while I had doubts growing in me about whether I could remain. But all the things which you claim to accept go against Anglican teaching. The sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead isn't to be found in authorised C of E material. Only by borrowing from the Catholic Church, can you incorporate these ideas into your worship.
I don't know in what context you are using the word "catholic" but your friends in the ordinariate who have come into communion with the See of Peter are much more Catholic than you are. Adopting a bit of Catholic liturgy and practice, while retaining the freedom of thought from the Protestant tradition, is what makes an Anglo-Catholic, because you've no need to obey anything you don't like. That may make you catholic, but certainly not Catholic.
The formularies of the C of E are not necessarily what many, indeed most Anglicans believe.
It is possible to define 'catholic' as wider than 'Roman Catholic.'
My friends who tell me I am 'more catholic than....' have been shocked by the number of RCs who do not go to confession, keep Sunday obligation, do not believe in the real presence (witness dodgy ablution practices by some priests) etc.
The one thing that put me off, when on the verge of crossing the Tiber, was to be told that:
a) if I didn't, I would go to Hell
and/or
b) that I was 'invincably ignorant.'
I know that 'invincible ignorance' is a technical term but the sheer arrogance of the RCC in using such a term made me decide that this was not a church where one journeyed in faith but one who had all the answers sewn up in advance. If I want that, I could just as easily become an evangelical fundamentalist.
[ 06. July 2011, 13:08: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The one thing that put me off, when on the verge of crossing the Tiber, was to be told that:
a) if I didn't, I would go to Hell
and/or
b) that I was 'invincably ignorant.'
Really?
Gosh. How archaic.
Poor things.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
that I was 'invincably ignorant.'
Perhaps it was your spelling. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Leo - might one not be equally shocked at the nimber of Anglicans who do not go to church ?It is good that you are a practising Christian whatever community you belong to.
I should have thought that you would have enough experience of Catholicism to know that any Catholic (presumably this was a Catholic who told you this) who told you that unless you become a paid up member of the Roman church you would go to Hell ,was talking rot.While the Church does say 'extra ecclesiam nulla salus'(outside of the church no salvation) we know that many ,many people are part of the Catholic church without being in full communion.Unless you are convinced that the Catholic church is what it claims to be you are under no obligation to try to become a full member of it and you are morally obliged to remain where you believe you are in the right place.
If you really believe that this is the official view of the Catholic Church you are indeed far away from the Catholic church and could hardly be defined as 'catholic'
If what you say is indeed the official view of the Church why would the successor of St Peter have taken part in 'heretical worship' in a former Catholic ,but now Anglican church,conducted by a soi-disant'archbishop' who ,being a heretic,must clearly be destined for Hell ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Leo - might one not be equally shocked at the nimber of Anglicans who do not go to church ?It is good that you are a practising Christian whatever community you belong to.
I should have thought that you would have enough experience of Catholicism to know that any Catholic (presumably this was a Catholic who told you this) who told you that unless you become a paid up member of the Roman church you would go to Hell ,was talking rot.While the Church does say 'extra ecclesiam nulla salus'(outside of the church no salvation) we know that many ,many people are part of the Catholic church without being in full communion.Unless you are convinced that the Catholic church is what it claims to be you are under no obligation to try to become a full member of it and you are morally obliged to remain where you believe you are in the right place.
If you really believe that this is the official view of the Catholic Church you are indeed far away from the Catholic church and could hardly be defined as 'catholic'
If what you say is indeed the official view of the Church why would the successor of St Peter have taken part in 'heretical worship' in a former Catholic ,but now Anglican church,conducted by a soi-disant'archbishop' who ,being a heretic,must clearly be destined for Hell ?
When has any pope rescinded these?:
quotes [Pope Eugenius IV, A.D. 1431-1447, at the Oecumenical Union Council of Florence]: "The Holy, Roman Church .... firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will 'go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels', unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
or
Pius IX: "It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord…….... the Catholic Church ..... is the temple of God, outside of which, except with the excuse of invincible ignorance, there is no hope of life or salvation."
My RC friend pointed these out to me as still being part of the teaching of the Majesterium. He has a PhD and has written much on theology.
He is my 'friend' no longer as I cannot tolerate any longer such arrogance.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Ken said that the church does not need one single 'boss' namely the pope.In religious terms,of course the pope is not the boss.God is the boss,Jesus Christ is the founder of the Church and the pope is the 'Servant of the servants of God.Anglicans,I think,recognise that,if the pope is to be seen as 'boss' so also is in each diocese of the Church of England the local bishop 'boss' in the same sense and indeed a 'boss' who before he (o she ?) can take up his(her) post has to swear allegiance to the secular 'boss',the English sovereign.In each individual parish the incumbent is also 'boss' In each case,however, that 'boss' is committed to the ministry of service of the faithful,the buiding up of the people of God on their way towards eternity.
The English sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (whatever that means), not just the "secular boss".
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Thanks to those who wrote about the importance of the Church ,which is the very Ark of salvation,the mystical Body of Christ whom many Christians believe to be the Saviour of the world and the only mediator and advocate.
Leo quoted a Catholic passage from relatively modern times,saying that those who recognise the Catholic Church as the Body of Christ and who refuse to enter it are condemned.This supposes that those who do not recognise the Church as what she claims to be are not condemned.
Indeed no pope has rescinded what has been written before but there is a wider interpretation of what the 'Catholic church' is according to the present Catholic catechism in its Profession of Faith,Chapter 3 ,para.3
'From the beginning this one Church has been marked by a great diversity...Within the unity of the People of God,a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together....Sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity and the apostle has to exhort christians to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace ... The sole Church of Christ is that which our Saviour,after his resurrection entrusted to Peter's pastoral care,commissioning him and other apostles to extend and to rule it...This Church,constituted and organized as a society in the present world,subsists in the Catholic Church,which is governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.
However one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into those communities (resulting from such separation) and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as BROTHERS.
Furthermore,many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the VISIBLE confines of the Catholic Church : the written Word of God,the life of grace,faith,hope and charity.Christ's Spirit uses these churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ entrusted to the Catholic Church.
Who belongs to the Catholic Church ? All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of
God....And to it belong or are ordered :
the Catholic faithful,
others who believe in Christ,
all mankind called by God's grace to salvation.
These are all words from the catechism of the Catholic Church and aim to reconcile the teachings of earlier popes with a wider,more charitable,possibly even more Christian definition of what the Catholic Church understands of itself.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I don't know exactly what this publication is; it calls itself "The Independent News Source."
The NCR is "independent" in the sense that it feels free to dissent radically from Catholic teaching and praxis and is proud to do so. As such, what ever else it is, it can't properly be seen to be a Catholic source at all. The editorial you linked to has been eviscerated by several online Catholic sources, including Fr Z here - seriously, read that link to see just how wrong the NCR piece is.
The U.S. Catholic piece was so thin and inaccurate that it was refuted in toto by one of the first comments below it (Richard M's "Hello Mr McRory").
I'm not necessarily saying there are no coherent dissenting voices on this issue (wrong, but coherent and deserving of attention) - just that these really aren't them.
Well, Chesterbelloc, to be honest I'm not very convinced by Father Z.'s screed, which is mostly name-calling ("National Catholic Fishwrap," I believe it was) and only a very small scintilla of argument. Already I'm turned off.
But I will try reading it again sometime to see if I can get more than that out of it....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Please do, TubaMirum - because there's more there than just polemic.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Czech bishop in question did no such thing. They were lay women before the "ceremony" and they remained lay women after the "ceremony". Invalid matter is invalid matter; he may as well have tried to ordain a tree or a car or a horse.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) This demands a Hell call but I can't be a***d.
I attended a Mass the other evening celebrated by a newly-ordained woman priest, assisted by her (visibly pregnant) vicar. It was one of the most moving liturgies I have ever witnessed. Both women radiated joy and happiness which was shared by the very diverse congregation. The traditional 'catholic' ceremonies of the new priest presenting flowers to Our Lady and her own mother, and the individual blessings after communion, took on a heightened significance. The priest as an ikon of the Christ who compared himself to a mother hen gathering the chicks under her wing, was far easier to recognise in them than in many a po-faced and finger-wagging male priest.
I just can't believe that God does not bless the ministries of these and countless other women priests. And call us all, male and female alike, to celebrate the inclusive generosity of the incarnate Christ.
I know that many Roman Catholics, unlike CL, yearn for the day when their church will recognise this development as God-inspired. Until then I am happy to remain an Anglican and be glad that our part of the Catholic Church can pioneer this and other insights for the eventual benefit of the whole. If that sounds triumphalist, so be it: I've had enough of Vatican triumphalism thank you very much.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
The English sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (whatever that means), not just the "secular boss".
It means "secular boss".
Henry VIII wanted to be called "supreme head" of the Church of England. Elizabeth I reckoned that that job could only belong to Jesus and had the title changed to "Governor".
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I attended a Mass the other evening celebrated by a newly-ordained woman priest, assisted by her (visibly pregnant) vicar. It was one of the most moving liturgies I have ever witnessed. Both women radiated joy and happiness which was shared by the very diverse congregation. The traditional 'catholic' ceremonies of the new priest presenting flowers to Our Lady and her own mother, and the individual blessings after communion, took on a heightened significance. The priest as an ikon of the Christ who compared himself to a mother hen gathering the chicks under her wing, was far easier to recognise in them than in many a po-faced and finger-wagging male priest.
I just can't believe that God does not bless the ministries of these and countless other women priests. And call us all, male and female alike, to celebrate the inclusive generosity of the incarnate Christ.
Ahh, you've got me! How can I possibly argue against the theological, scriptural and magisterial weight of the "but they're lovely people" argument. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
I know that many Roman Catholics, unlike CL, yearn for the day when their church will recognise this development as God-inspired.
The Parousia will have come and gone and they'll still be waiting.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Ahh, you've got me! How can I possibly argue against the theological, scriptural and magisterial weight of the "but they're lovely people" argument.
I think you may have missed the "Mary, Mother of God" argument in your choler....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Ahh, you've got me! How can I possibly argue against the theological, scriptural and magisterial weight of the "but they're lovely people" argument.
Read for comprehension. Did I say that? (They are, of course, but I am prepared to believe that you are a lovely person too.) That is not my point: it is that an inclusive priesthood helps to demonstrate the inclusiveness of God, in my view, and in that of many others. That might be a subjective judgement, but I would make a similarly subjective judgement by deciding to accept the Pope's teaching.
I also said quote:
I know that many Roman Catholics, unlike CL, yearn for the day when their church will recognise this development as God-inspired.
and CL commented
quote:
The Parousia will have come and gone and they'll still be waiting.
It is good to know that you have inside knowledge of God's mind. Is that given at a recognised Catholic ceremony, and if so, why are so many orthodox Catholics reluctant to be so dogmatic?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Angloid is right. Its not the "nice people" agument.
Our parish church got its first woman vicar about 16 years ago. (The very wonderful April Keech) Some people objected. Some of them left. Many of them came back a while later. Many of those who didn't went to a nearby Baptist church which then promptly chose a woman minister - and some of them are still there. When she left about seven years later we has a big farewell service. Some of us stood up and said a few words. I said that no-one in that congregation (rather larger than the one we had had when she arrived) now doubted that God blessed the ordained ministry of women. That was true then and its still true now. It was our experience of her ministry that convinced the doubters, not any fluffy thoughts about niceness.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
The late great Cardinal Hume put it succinctly: we have been growing closer together, but as two parallel lines might grow closer. We are not converging.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Any sensible argument as to why women can't be priests has to be based in the actual requirements of the function.
And I have yet to see any evidence that having 'dangly bits' is remotely relevant to the function, so the argument will have to be based on some fundamental emotional/mental difference that means women can't quite do what men can do.
The alternative, of course, is that any valid reasons in the past for not allowing women to be priests was not because of their intrinsic 'faults' but because of external factors - culture, power and so on - that prevented it. And if those external factors belong to the past, then so does the conclusion that women are not suitable as priests.
This is why it's so vital to identify the REASONS for a decision like this. Saying 'it's just the way things are' isn't good enough. Because it's possible that it was because of the way things were. If the reasons can be properly identified, then we're in a position to ask whether the reasons still apply.
[ 08. July 2011, 03:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Angloid is right. Its not the "nice people" agument.
Our parish church got its first woman vicar about 16 years ago. (The very wonderful April Keech) Some people objected. Some of them left. Many of them came back a while later. Many of those who didn't went to a nearby Baptist church which then promptly chose a woman minister - and some of them are still there. When she left about seven years later we has a big farewell service. Some of us stood up and said a few words. I said that no-one in that congregation (rather larger than the one we had had when she arrived) now doubted that God blessed the ordained ministry of women. That was true then and its still true now. It was our experience of her ministry that convinced the doubters, not any fluffy thoughts about niceness.
A very similar experience to mine, in a traditional anglo-catholic parish that welcomed its first woman curate. Practically nobody left, and the initial 50-50 scepticism was quickly transformed into 100% acceptance. The woman whose first Mass I attended this week was part of that congregation.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The late great Cardinal Hume put it succinctly: we have been growing closer together, but as two parallel lines might grow closer. We are not converging.
Maybe it's me being thick, but I cannot come up with any way of parsing this sentence that makes sense. How do parallel lines ever grow closer together? I thought the whole point about them was that they always stayed exactly the same distance from each other?!?!
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yangtze
Shipmate
# 4965
|
Posted
They might be one mile apart or one millimetre apart.
Like this | |
or like this | |
or like this | |
ETA: Hmm, well on my screen in the dialogue box those lines are a different number of spaces away from each other but after posting they're all right next to each other. So not such a good illustration after all. How about if I do this
|..........|
|.....|
|..|
[ 08. July 2011, 10:02: Message edited by: Yangtze ]
--------------------
Arthur & Henry Ethical Shirts for Men
organic cotton, fair trade cotton, linen
Sometimes I wonder What's for Afters?
Posts: 2022 | From: the smallest town in England | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I think that there is more to the difference between men and women as well as the obvious 'dangly bits'.Both men and women have 'dangly bits' anyway.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The late great Cardinal Hume put it succinctly: we have been growing closer together, but as two parallel lines might grow closer. We are not converging.
Maybe it's me being thick, but I cannot come up with any way of parsing this sentence that makes sense. How do parallel lines ever grow closer together? I thought the whole point about them was that they always stayed exactly the same distance from each other?!?!
It could make sense in some multi-dimensional geometries, for instance think of time zone lines on the earth, but I don't think that was what the Cardinal meant!
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The late great Cardinal Hume put it succinctly: we have been growing closer together, but as two parallel lines might grow closer. We are not converging.
Exactly.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
In a thread about perceived misogyny, it might not be wise to compare a woman with "a tree or a car or a horse."
Just sayin'.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that there is more to the difference between men and women as well as the obvious 'dangly bits'.Both men and women have 'dangly bits' anyway.
Well then. Someone ought to be able to identify the differences that are relevant to excluding women from the priesthood. Whether there are differences is not the question. The question is whether any of the differences mean something when it comes to fulfilling that function.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The late great Cardinal Hume put it succinctly: we have been growing closer together, but as two parallel lines might grow closer. We are not converging.
Exactly.
Exactly a meaningless contradiction? I'm not sure you meant that. If two lines are getting closer they aren't paralel,
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
The lines could have been bulging more...
(Coat, hat etc.)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Exactly a meaningless contradiction? I'm not sure you meant that. If two lines are getting closer they aren't paralel,
erm, there's a helpful diagram above to show how parallel lines might get closer and remain parallel. No meaningless contradiction at all.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
It's a confused metaphor at best.
He was talking about the relative positions of the RCC and CoE over time. One would deduce from that that the "lines" trace the journey of each Church, i.e. that they are continuous. But if they're continuous they can either be parallel or moving closer but not both.
If instead of continuous lines we have line segments which are moveable markers representing the current position of each Church then these could remain parallel and come closer together. However I wouldn't say that's the straightforward reading of the phrase.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that there is more to the difference between men and women as well as the obvious 'dangly bits'.Both men and women have 'dangly bits' anyway.
Well then. Someone ought to be able to identify the differences that are relevant to excluding women from the priesthood. Whether there are differences is not the question. The question is whether any of the differences mean something when it comes to fulfilling that function.
If there is indeed a question, Christ has answered it for us.
Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that there is more to the difference between men and women as well as the obvious 'dangly bits'.Both men and women have 'dangly bits' anyway.
Well then. Someone ought to be able to identify the differences that are relevant to excluding women from the priesthood. Whether there are differences is not the question. The question is whether any of the differences mean something when it comes to fulfilling that function.
People are not ordained to a 'function'.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that there is more to the difference between men and women as well as the obvious 'dangly bits'.Both men and women have 'dangly bits' anyway.
Well then. Someone ought to be able to identify the differences that are relevant to excluding women from the priesthood. Whether there are differences is not the question. The question is whether any of the differences mean something when it comes to fulfilling that function.
If there is indeed a question, Christ has answered it for us.
Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood.
Christ? Or the Pope? If the latter, I seem to remember a pope stating that the earth didn't go round the sun. The sun went round the earth.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that there is more to the difference between men and women as well as the obvious 'dangly bits'.Both men and women have 'dangly bits' anyway.
Well then. Someone ought to be able to identify the differences that are relevant to excluding women from the priesthood. Whether there are differences is not the question. The question is whether any of the differences mean something when it comes to fulfilling that function.
If there is indeed a question, Christ has answered it for us.
Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood.
Christ? Or the Pope? If the latter, I seem to remember a pope stating that the earth didn't go round the sun. The sun went round the earth.
What a thoroughly specious comparison. The pope is Christ's vicar on Earth, thus eminently qualified to express the mind of the Church that women not merely won't be ordained but in fact cannot be ordained (i.e it is an impossibility, in the dictionary definition of that word). Last time I checked they weren't required to be astronomers as part of the job description.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
It's a confused metaphor at best.
Please yourself. I find it quite simple and clear - and accurate.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
