|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A decision to cross the Tiber
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
If there is indeed a question, Christ has answered it for us.
Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood.
Where does Christ say that men can?
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I seem to remember a pope stating that the earth didn't go round the sun. The sun went round the earth.
OK, this chestnut is so old and rotten that it needs throwing on the fire straight away. The Church has NEVER had a defined, required-belief position on this issue.
So let's hear you argument first, before implying that the Church has been guilty of a dogmatic u-turn. You can start with telling me which pope it was that defined it, if you like.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
It's a confused metaphor at best.
Oh indeed...
quote:
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.
That's not necessarily true. You could apply a transformation that moved the whole of each line closer together.
This would make the metaphor suggest that the transform would retrospectively change the view of Pius IX. Or the transformation happened eternally before all ages...
quote:
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.
But it does demonstrate that, regardless of their position on astronomy, cardinals are not that good at mathematics.
[ 08. July 2011, 22:41: Message edited by: 3rdFooter ]
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
You could also say that some people miss the wood for the trees, over-analyse and apply mathematical theory to what is no more than an image. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I rather liked the analogy.
I would be interested to see in what part of the bible Jesus is reported to have said anything about the gender of his priests. Or how the BVM and Mary Magdalene are seen in this respect.
Jesus selected Judas & Peter as disciples, does this mean all priests should conspire in the death of a friend and the denial of God at least once during their ordained life. Perhaps then going on a ritual journey of penance afterwards - maybe, as for Peter, at the time they enter in the role of bishop ?
[ 09. July 2011, 07:37: Message edited by: Think² ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I would be interested to see in what part of the bible Jesus is reported to have said anything about the gender of his priests.
Me too.
My current understanding is that Holy Tradition builds on the (well known) restrictive scriptures in the Pauline letters which were discussed (ad nauseam!) in the run up to the OoW within Anglicanism.
Also on the fact that Jesus' group of 12 disciples, who with the exception of Judas became regarded as foundational Apostles, were all males.
Also on the fact that the Last Supper was held with the Twelve and, after Judas had left, the Bread and Wine were demonstrated to them, with the injunction "Do this". In other words, they were authorised as priests over the feast and, being all male, there is no authorisation for females in that central act.
There is also something in the notion of the priest as an Ikon (representation?) of Christ involved in the thinking.
+++ John Paul 11 made the definitive statement that "the Church has no authority whatsoever to ordain women"; I think this meant "not in the past, not now, not ever". Here's the text.
Here is a link to a summary in "Catholic Answers"
The whole position is arguable, and arguable against. But JP11's missive is intended to be definitive and authoritative for Catholics. Whether they like it or not.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
PS. Should have included this link as well, since the Declaration is key to understanding JP11's missive.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Pretty much everything that Barnabas just said.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
You are going to have great difficulty finding Jesus say anything about the priesthood at all! The Twelve are limited to that number - why? Because of the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 foundational brothers of those tribes. After Judas just Matthias is appointed to keep to the number 12. Paul puts the kaybosh on that by being named as an Apostle as well.
This sort of discussion boils down to whether you accept the maxim of "that which I received, that also I pass on to you" from St Paul. That is the Catholic and Orthodox view on doctrine - it's not as fluid as it is for other traditions. There may be very good, totally valid arguments for something else, but if one is going to receive something then you receive it as it is.
That ultimately is what the Catholic Church's argument with the Anglican Church is: it has tinkered too often with the Sacrament of Orders. That's their business - but it does also mean they cannot at the same time argue that they have that which has been handed on. Because they have changed that which was handed on so that it is now something else.
[ 09. July 2011, 11:20: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes. The argument is as always about the essence of what has been handed on. The argument against OoW is that equality of worth should not be construed as identity of role. The counterbalance is "why not?" Or, in my case, "isn't that ultimately a matter of the sovereignty of God and the gifting He distributes?" In short, not everyone is cut out for such responsibilities, that's clear, but why limit the search and testing for who is on the basis of gender? In short, if someone displays the necessary character and aptitude, why should the question of gender matter?
The resolution of those questions continues to be disputed; which explains why we are in DH.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
That ultimately is what the Catholic Church's argument with the Anglican Church is: it has tinkered too often with the Sacrament of Orders. That's their business - but it does also mean they cannot at the same time argue that they have that which has been handed on. Because they have changed that which was handed on so that it is now something else.
Handed on = traditio - is tradition static. I am reminded of a talk I gave back in the year 2000 called CATHOLIC TRADITION: FOSSIL OR CHAMELION?:
"Through the Spirit....the power of what is remembered is made present afresh, and succeeding generations appropriate the event remembered....From the earliest times also the prophetic role has been linked to the apostolic, since the Spirit reminds us what may have been forgotten." (Disciples of Christ/RC Commission)
Sociology asks whether episcopacy is an adaptation of Roman imperial provincial government and whether the apostolic succession was stressed to secure the office of bishop against the erosion by C19 liberalism and secularism.
'Prince Albert's bedroom exactly as he left it?
"Tradition has been viewed in different ways. One approach is primarily concerned never to go beyond the bounds of scripture. Under the guidance of the Spirit undiscovered values and truths are sought in the Scriptures to illuminate the faith according to the needs of each generation. This is not slavery to the text of Scripture. It is an unfolding of the riches of the original revelation. Another approach, while different, does not necessarily contradict the former. In the conviction that the Holy Spirit is seeking to guide the Church into the fullness of truth, it draws upon everything in human experience and thought which will give to the content of revelation its fullest expression and widest application. It is primarily concerned with the growth of the seed of God's word from age to age." (ARCIC Final Report)
"But tradition is a dynamic process with inevitable admixture of truth and error; and formulations of faith change through the ages, not least because of changing contexts and situations." (Baptist response to Lima text)
"We are agreed that the development of doctrine and the production of confessions of faith is a dynamic process." (WCC)
Tradition is a passing on of skills and resources, tools for induction into a way of belonging.
The test for orthodoxy is if the classical models can still nourish life.
Things may often seem to be innovations to those who do not fully know the tradition.
Your experience, your story is of value. Tradition permits change and expects the unexpected.
"The tradition..and in particular the doctrinal tradition, is truly itself only when it throws itself away. That is, it is not the last word, just as it is not the first word. It is only within the dynamism of history as the place and the time of irreversible personal decisions that the Word is truly heard, and faith truly active." (R. Gregor Smith)
BETRAYING THE TRADITION?
'prodidomi' - to betray; paradidomi - to hand over
'traditor' - traitor; 'traditio' - to hand on.
God takes a risk with us in giving us tradition.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
It's a confused metaphor at best.
Please yourself. I find it quite simple and clear - and accurate.
But those are different lines in the diagram
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You could also say that some people miss the wood for the trees, over-analyse and apply mathematical theory to what is no more than an image.
Actually it wasn't until the idea of a mathematical transformation came up that I had any idea what the image was meant to be - that's a much simpler model than that diagram which looks like two broken lines which aren't paralell and isn't intuitive at all.
If the image is harder to understand than a vector transformation, I'd not advise using it as a sermon illustration!
I suppose the sermon illustration might be to move the palms of your hands closer together until they are almost touching but there is still an airgap between them. If you held them up so the congregation could see they would be in a traditional praying position. Praying together but not holding hands... that might work,
--------------------
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
Thank you, leo, for that explanation of the approach to Tradition held by those outside the Catholic Church. That was very helpful.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Also on the fact that the Last Supper was held with the Twelve and, after Judas had left, the Bread and Wine were demonstrated to them, with the injunction "Do this". In other words, they were authorised as priests over the feast and, being all male, there is no authorisation for females in that central act.
Of course, they were all Jewish, too. And all from Palestine....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Sorry to be really stupid but I still haven't worked out what Cardinal Hume meant. Was it that the C of E and Catholic church are getting closer by occasional step changes rather than gradually ? Or was it that they are becoming more similar but won't end up joining together ? Or was it something else entirely ?
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Sorry to be really stupid but I still haven't worked out what Cardinal Hume meant. Was it that the C of E and Catholic church are getting closer by occasional step changes rather than gradually ? Or was it that they are becoming more similar but won't end up joining together ? Or was it something else entirely ?
Gosh, I am flummoxed by how much trouble this has all caused. So here goes.
It is asserted that we are moving closer together, which is true. However, it is not in a way that means we are converging. If you picture that as two lines, convergence would look like this:
/ \
Those two lines will eventually meet as their ends move towards each other. One would call that unity.
However, our getting closer isn't happening like that in reality. For a time it seemed as if it was, but in fact we were simply getting closer to each other side-by-side as it were. Hence two parallel lines:
| |
They might be moving closer to each other, but there is no real meeting between them, no point at which there is an intersection and they join.
We are travelling on two different tracks. Sometimes those tracks are close, sometimes the gap is widened.
Of course, some would argue that something else completely has happened: we WERE converging but are once again diverging:
\ /
/ \
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Pondering the people I know, it looks more like this:
| | /\\\ ->
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Those lines represent, from left to right:
The Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, URC, Lutherans and post-evangelicals. Not a bad diagram ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Close, but no cigar.#
They represent (L to R)
| Conservative Evangelical
| A certain snooty kind of Anglicanism
/ A type of Roman Catholic (a lot in the Ordinariate are going to be very disappointed with what they find)
\ Liberal URC
\ Liberal Anglican who aren't as liberal as they like to think
\ Methodist desperately trying to catch up with the Liberal Anglicans
-> a very peculiar type of Anglican who don't quite get the concept of the rest of the CofE.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I would be interested to see in what part of the bible Jesus is reported to have said anything about the gender of his priests.
Me too.
My current understanding is that Holy Tradition builds on the (well known) restrictive scriptures in the Pauline letters which were discussed (ad nauseam!) in the run up to the OoW within Anglicanism.
Also on the fact that Jesus' group of 12 disciples, who with the exception of Judas became regarded as foundational Apostles, were all males.
Also on the fact that the Last Supper was held with the Twelve and, after Judas had left, the Bread and Wine were demonstrated to them, with the injunction "Do this". In other words, they were authorised as priests over the feast and, being all male, there is no authorisation for females in that central act.
There is also something in the notion of the priest as an Ikon (representation?) of Christ involved in the thinking.
+++ John Paul 11 made the definitive statement that "the Church has no authority whatsoever to ordain women"; I think this meant "not in the past, not now, not ever". Here's the text.
Here is a link to a summary in "Catholic Answers"
The whole position is arguable, and arguable against. But JP11's missive is intended to be definitive and authoritative for Catholics. Whether they like it or not.
I see your Catholic Answers Forum and raise you with a Cardinal quoted in the
National Catholic Reporter.
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Think I'd better clarify! I'm a nonconformist who believes in the priesthood of all believers (all really meaning all) and attends a church which has had women elders for 20 years (a change for which I campaigned in the 70's and 80's).
My information about the Catholic position has been gained mostly through my time on SoF; reading loads of interesting posts and links. Quoting sources doesn't mean I agree with them. I said the position was arguable, and arguable-against. I'm one of those who argues against the Catholic position.
Perhaps Cardinal Policarpo's pronouncement needs to be read carefully in conjunction with JP11's Apostolic letter? On the face of it, he's flying in the face of it! But what do I know? Some Catholics are actually rather good in using words precisely, in order to stay in line and sound out of line at the same time. It's not a knack I have myself. My lot just argue interminably and split from time to time. I love them despite their argumentativeness and also because of it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Thanks for taking the time to explain, Triple Tiara, it makes sense to me now.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
I see your Catholic Answers Forum and raise you with a Cardinal quoted in the
National Catholic Reporter.
See what I mean about the NCR? Dissident to it's very bones. This is not a neutral news source.
Unfortunately for those who are trying to subvert the teaching authority of the Church, the Cardinal has retracted his recent comments.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Close, but no cigar.#
They represent (L to R)
/ A type of Roman Catholic (a lot in the Ordinariate are going to be very disappointed with what they find)
I think this is why the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament has just donated £1 million to the Ordinariate. Insulate themselves from the harbingers of disappointment.
quote:
-> a very peculiar type of Anglican who don't quite get the concept of the rest of the CofE.
Isn't that most of us??!
[ 10. July 2011, 08:44: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Some Catholics are actually rather good in using words precisely, in order to stay in line and sound out of line at the same time.
In our neck of the woods, this is called "Anglican Fudge."
Of course, Catholics have a lot more doctrine 'n' discipline to work with, so their version will be more intricate, no doubt....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
I see your Catholic Answers Forum and raise you with a Cardinal quoted in the
National Catholic Reporter.
See what I mean about the NCR? Dissident to it's very bones. This is not a neutral news source.
Unfortunately for those who are trying to subvert the teaching authority of the Church, the Cardinal has retracted his recent comments.
Thank goodness Anglican's don't have the thought police and can say what they like - until, that is, the dreaded 'Covenant' comes in.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
I see your Catholic Answers Forum and raise you with a Cardinal quoted in the
National Catholic Reporter.
See what I mean about the NCR? Dissident to it's very bones. This is not a neutral news source.
Unfortunately for those who are trying to subvert the teaching authority of the Church, the Cardinal has retracted his recent comments.
I still don't see that the Pope or anyone else has given a theological reason for the non-ordination of women. Unless you believe that by definition any papal statement is theological.
--------------------
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
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
"That which we have received" is a pretty solid theological argument, I would suggest Angloid. At least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. There are all sorts of things to do with the sacraments that we receive without trying to think up some reason for them. What is the theological reason for using bread and wine, or water at baptism? Or oil for anointing. Why not use some other materials instead? Well, some do of course, as eccles discussions regularly show. But the Catholic Church uses that which we were instructed to use, and don't feel the need to delve into the psychology of Jesus to show why he was wrong and we now know better so think we should change what he handed on to us.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Thank goodness Anglican's don't have the thought police and can say what they like - until, that is, the dreaded 'Covenant' comes in.
Thank goodness for the Magisterium which is able to say when someone has moved beyond what the Church teaches. We've seen far too many people down the ages coming up with novel and deceptive ideas which have distracted and divided the Church. Oh hello there Arius and Marcion and Pelagius. I hadn't spotted you hovering over there in the corner!
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
"That which we have received" is a pretty solid theological argument, I would suggest Angloid.
Which being interpreted is simply 'we've always done it that way.' In many cases that is not a knock-down argument against change. Anyway, Jesus said 'do this' with respect to bread and wine, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that he laid down the rules for who should do this. Or how it should be done.
--------------------
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
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Which being interpreted is simply 'we've always done it that way.'
As the Orthodox Mousethief once interjected when someone used that as some sort of put-down: "What's wrong with that?"
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
What undermines the 'we've always done it that way' argument is that is used so selectively. The Roman Catholic Magesterium has decided to alter the tradition on its own infallibility, the preference for a celibate presbyteriat, papal supremacy, the bodily assumption of Mary and the filioque*, yet somehow gets all rigid about changes in understanding (as opposed to changes in tradition) in other parts of the catholic church.
Don't give me 'the Catholic magesterium has never changed anything' because if it were true the great schism would never have happened. Most of the distance between the RC church and the rest of the church is laterly out of the RCC's inability to listen to anyone else.
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Thank goodness Anglican's don't have the thought police and can say what they like.
Yeah, cos it's so oppressive to expect Cardinals to assent to the magisterium.
3rdFooter, that would be a whole 'nother dead horse.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
And marriage! Don't forget marriage, added as a Sacrament in the 11th C.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Don't be silly, TubaMirum. St Augustine, for example, was talking about the status of marriage as an established sacrament as early 400.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Don't be silly, TubaMirum. St Augustine, for example, was talking about the status of marriage as an established sacrament as early 400.
And,
quote:
Jerome wrote: "It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil" (Letter 22). Tertullian argued that marriage "consists essentially in fornication" (An Exhortation to Chastity") Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage said that the first commandment given to men was to increase and multiply, but now that the earth was full there was no need to continue this process of multiplication. Augustine was clear that if everybody stopped marrying and having children that would be an admirable thing; it would mean that the Kingdom of God would return all the sooner and the world would come to an end.
This negative view of marriage was reflected in the lack of interest shown by the Church authorities. Although the Church quickly produced liturgies to celebrate Baptism and the Eucharist, no special ceremonial was devised to celebrate Christian marriage, nor was it considered important for couples to have their nuptials blessed by a priest. People could marry by mutual agreement in the presence of witnesses. This system, known as Spousals, persisted after the Reformation. At first the old Roman pagan rite was used by Christians, although modified superficially. The first detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates from the 9th century and was identical to the old nuptial service of Ancient Rome.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
"That which we have received" is a pretty solid theological argument, I would suggest Angloid.
Which being interpreted is simply 'we've always done it that way.' In many cases that is not a knock-down argument against change. Anyway, Jesus said 'do this' with respect to bread and wine, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that he laid down the rules for who should do this. Or how it should be done.
In terms of obeying Christ, it makes more sense to obey sacred tradition (as you say, "because we've always done it that way"), than it does to establish protestant 'innovations' (read: "make things up").
Who knows what's most appropriate in a priesthood: Christ, or some political radicals in the 1600s? I know who I would put my faith in..
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Yeah, cos it's so oppressive to expect Cardinals to assent to the magisterium.
Well if senior clergy won't re-examine understanding and and anyone minor gets excommunicated for it, how do you protect against invincible ignorance? What are cardinals for then accept making sure the new pope is the same as the old pope? (we have established that is ain't doing the maths )
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
3rdFooter, that would be a whole 'nother dead horse.
First the out-riders, then the whole bleedin' cavelry
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(BTW: apparently Augustine thought that the Lord's Prayer and the Creed were sacraments, too, I'm reading.
I'm not quite sure what's actually meant by "sacrament," then, according to old Auggie....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
In terms of obeying Christ, it makes more sense to obey sacred tradition (as you say, "because we've always done it that way"), than it does to establish protestant 'innovations' (read: "make things up").
Who knows what's most appropriate in a priesthood: Christ, or some political radicals in the 1600s? I know who I would put my faith in..
Ooh! Ooh! Me Sir! I know this one! Its one of those iregler verbs that only the one true church can conjugate.
* We know the mind of Christ in interpreting the tradition
* You are thinking things that the magisterium has views on, please present yourself to the CDF
* He is a protestant innovator
Of course the "Ecumenical" ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Council of Trent was clearly doing nothing new in the 16th Century.
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
a lot in the Ordinariate are going to be very disappointed with what they find
I can only speak for myself, but I have experienced no disappointment at joining the Catholic Church via the Ordinariate. From September of this year, Mass will be celebrated in the Ordinary Form, using the new, dignified and faithful to the Latin, English translation, where we won't have to cringe at the awful English. Thanks to Pope Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae, all the Catholic faithful now have the right to attend Masses celebrated in the Extraordinary Form, the Mass of Ages, time honoured for hundreds of years, and a repository of the true faith.
In the Ordinariate, once the CDF has approved our traditional language liturgy, we will have a magnificent rite largely based on Sarum (according to Mgr Andrew Burnham). We will also have one of the great treasures of Anglican Patrimony, Evensong (hopefully with Benediction). We have true scaramental assurance, and received doctrine, free of the reinventions of the Protestant reformers. Compared with such an Aladdins Cave of treasures, things like womens ordination pale into insignificance.
The only things I miss about the Church of England are its beautiful choral tradition and the magnificent English church buildings. Catholic buildings in England tend to be uninspiring with exceptions like St Etheldreda's, Ely Place, and Brompton Oratory, both of which I've recently visited. But the choral tradition is something we may be able to build up in the Ordinariate, and architecture is quite unimportant in the face of all the advantages. I am totally happy and confident at having taken this big decision after a decade of soul searching.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
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.
Oh, Christ has answered it for us? Thank goodness for that - and just in time, it's the episcopate debate at deanery synod tomorrow.
Sorry to be dim, could you just remind me of the verses where he is asked "can women be ordained to the priesthood?" and answers "no"? It's just that I have the 'justice' verses and the 'woman learning at his feet' verses and the 'woman witnesses news of the resurrection' verses and the 'woman telling the news of the Messiah to the Samaritans' verses - but I haven't found the 'women cannot be ordained Christian priests' verses. Of course I haven't found the 'Men can be ordained Christian priests' verses either, so I may be looking in the wrong place.
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
PaulTH: quote:
We have true scaramental assurance, and received doctrine, free of the reinventions of the Protestant reformers. Compared with such an Aladdins Cave of treasures, things like womens ordination pale into insignificance.
Yeah, keeping half of humanity in a theological and administrative ghetto. No prob.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
TubaMirum, your quotes proves nothing except that viginity was, and is, considered ontologically preferrable to marriage, many of the Fathers thought the end-times were "nigher" than they were, and that matrimony had and still has as its ministers no-one but the couple themselves. What does it say about whether Christian marriage was early considered sacramental? Nothing. Given that they had the Gospels and Paul's epistles, we can be sure that in general the early Church put a high status (like Jesus and Paul) upon matrimony - that "great mystery". If it was so bad, according to the early Church, why did it (and they) not just die out?
[ 10. July 2011, 21:48: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Yeah, keeping half of humanity in a theological and administrative ghetto. No prob.
Suspend your disbelief for just one second, Lyda*Rose: supposing it were not God's will for the Church that the ordained ministry be open to women, would the Church's adherence to His will be unjust? Because that, generally, is what the Catholics I know and whose authority I serve under do believe.
--------------------
"[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 Lyda*Rose:
Yeah, keeping half of humanity in a theological and administrative ghetto. No prob.
Of the 1.2 billion people in the world who are Catholic, if approx half of them are women, and I have no statistics on that, then 0.6 billiom women are willingly being kept in a theological and administrative ghetto. This is nonsense. People can genuinely believe in the Catholic or Orthodox faith and de facto belong to churches which don't ordain women.
I am getting fed up of saying this amid accusations of misogyny: I embrace and uphold Catholic doctrine. I reject and totally do not support Protestant doctrine. Protestants (some of them) ordain women. But they usually don't believe in a sacramental priesthood. Catholics don't ordain women. But we do believe in a sacramental priesthood handed down from the Lord's Supper. This is not a man/woman issue.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
TubaMirum, your quotes proves nothing except that viginity was, and is, considered ontologically preferrable to marriage, many of the Fathers thought the end-times were "nigher" than they were, and that matrimony had and still has as its ministers no-one but the couple themselves. What does it say about whether Christian marriage was early considered sacramental? Nothing. Given that they had the Gospels and Paul's epistles, we can be sure that in general the early Church put a high status (like Jesus and Paul) upon matrimony - that "great mystery". If it was so bad, according to the early Church, why did it (and they) not just die out?
Chesterbelloc, let's not go on about this. What I said was this: Marriage was not added to Catholic doctrine as a Sacrament until the 11th Century. It's really not a disputable question; it's a plain fact.
Actually, I think it was not officially pronounced "one of the seven sacracments" until some council or other in the 14th Century. This is clearly a change in doctrine, which is what was on the table for discussion at the time. It doesn't matter what Augustine said in the 4th Century; lots of people have said lots of things over time. The point is that the church didn't decide to make this an official part of doctrine for over 1000 years - that is, the church changed its teaching on something.
Really, it's quite simple.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Yeah, keeping half of humanity in a theological and administrative ghetto. No prob.
....
I am getting fed up of saying this amid accusations of misogyny: I embrace and uphold Catholic doctrine. I reject and totally do not support Protestant doctrine. Protestants (some of them) ordain women. But they usually don't believe in a sacramental priesthood. Catholics don't ordain women. But we do believe in a sacramental priesthood handed down from the Lord's Supper. This is not a man/woman issue.
PaulTH,
I understand that it must be really irritating for people who are not misogynistic, but are opposed to the ordination of women, to be constantly accused of sexism. I know that it can be an unfair accusation and please understand that it is usually not made from a desire to hurt. Rather, it usually stems (as does much of the tone of this entire debate) from our different experiences.
When one has heard and been the recipient of sexist attitudes to a greater or lesser degree for many years, one may become more sensitive to them and perhaps see them where they don't exist.
But I'm afraid that that doesn't mean that there is never sexism underlying anti OoW attitudes. Many people manage to easily combine good old-fashioned misogyny with their theological, ecclesial and other objections to the ordination of women and I'm afraid that some people don't have any objections other than misogyny.
In the light of that, comments such as
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This is not a man/woman issue.
and
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
We have true scaramental assurance, and received doctrine, free of the reinventions of the Protestant reformers. Compared with such an Aladdins Cave of treasures, things like womens ordination pale into insignificance.
may sometimes be heard as:
This is not a man/woman issue for me
and
We have true scaramental assurance, and received doctrine, free of the reinventions of the Protestant reformers. Compared with such an Aladdins Cave of treasures, things like womens ordination pale into insignificance for me
And I'm afraid that for me, at least, this is a 'man/woman' issue and it won't be fading into insignificance anytime soon.
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
