|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No, it's very much part of the question.
Incidentally, I am aware that many RCs support women's ordination in the Western world (but probably not so much in the Third World). In the early Church, where lay people urged people from their own ranks to be priests, we might day that the Holy Spirit is speaking through His Church. Now that the churches (other than congregational ones) have hierarchies the Spirit is going to have to convince bishops, principally he who sits on the throne of Peter.
Does the Holy Spirit not work in the other churches? The Methodists have Bishops, you know; so do others, I'm sure.
And "he who sits on the throne of Peter" has his fingers in his ears just now anyway, too bad for him.
This argument just does not hold water at all....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
You think Baptist ministers don't consider themselves priests?
AIUI all Baptists, ministers or otherwise, consider themselves priests, so the concept of ordination to the priesthood, in a Baptist church, makes no sense.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
In what sense is requiring non-Catholics to ordain like Catholics before you'll consider those ordinations potentially part of the leading of the Holy Spirit not circular and therefore begging the question?
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
You think Baptist ministers don't consider themselves priests?
AIUI all Baptists, ministers or otherwise, consider themselves priests, so the concept of ordination to the priesthood, in a Baptist church, makes no sense.
I don't think that's true of all Baptists. It's certainly not true of all Methodists and my "Baptists" was a lazy way of saying "all those groups Ken mentioned".
Even if they don't have the same understanding of the priesthood, the experience of these groups is that there are no roles that can't be performed equally well by women and men. Is that experience being listened to?
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Even if they don't have the same understanding of the priesthood, the experience of these groups is that there are no roles that can't be performed equally well by women and men. Is that experience being listened to?
I'm shamelessly playing Devil's Advocate here, but from the Catholic perspective the sole question is whether women can validly celebrate a Eucharist or pronounce absolution. Unlike among conservative Evangelicals, there is no objection to women adopting other roles of ministry or leadership.
I don't think you can tell, objectively, whether a sacrament is valid, and since most Baptists have a different concept of absolution and the Eucharist, it's not really what they'd be looking for. So I'm not sure what the Baptist / Methodist experience really proves to Catholics. (To conservative Evangelicals, on the other hand ...)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Of course its a circular argument.
1) only a tiny number of churches ordain women to the priesthood
2) but lots of churches ordain women
3) but they aren't ordaining priests
4) how do we know they aren' ordaining priests?
5) because if they were they would be catholics and catholics don't ordain women!
I'm pretty sure that Mehtodists and Presbyterians believe themselves to be ordaining men and women to the traditional ministries of eldership and oversight. Christian presbyters are elders of the church, not sacrificing Temple priests.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
...from the Catholic perspective the sole question is whether women can validly celebrate a Eucharist or pronounce absolution. Unlike among conservative Evangelicals, there is no objection to women adopting other roles of ministry or leadership.
I wish that this were true, but I don’t think it’s quite that simple. Priests and especially bishops are more than just machines for confecting and dispensing sacraments. Traditionally, bishops have a “triple charism” of teaching, sanctifying (celebrating the sacraments) and ruling. Teaching, especially, is a critical role of a bishop: helping the faithful distinguish true from false doctrine.
So, in the Roman Catholic Church at least, women are not just unable to celebrate the sacraments, they are also limited in their ability to participate in the most significant doctrinal debates. They can be theologians but not members of the CDF, biblical scholars but not (I think) members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Under strict rules, I don’t think a woman would be allowed a regular role in preaching at Mass.
To be clear, I hope that the RCC will someday move to ordain women – though that looks increasingly unlikely. In the meantime, the Church could and should take steps to involve women in very senior teaching and ruling roles. Here the arguments about acting in persona Christi are harder to make; I don’t think we would say that a women can’t be a teacher. There have in the recent past (mid-19th century) been lay cardinals, for example, though this was stopped in 1918. Why couldn’t we have lay cardinals again? And why couldn’t some of them be women?
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No, it's very much part of the question.
Incidentally, I am aware that many RCs support women's ordination in the Western world (but probably not so much in the Third World). In the early Church, where lay people urged people from their own ranks to be priests, we might day that the Holy Spirit is speaking through His Church. Now that the churches (other than congregational ones) have hierarchies the Spirit is going to have to convince bishops, principally he who sits on the throne of Peter.
Does the Holy Spirit not work in the other churches? The Methodists have Bishops, you know; so do others, I'm sure.
And "he who sits on the throne of Peter" has his fingers in his ears just now anyway, too bad for him.
This argument just does not hold water at all....
I agree with you - I am trying to point out what the issue looks like from a catholic perspective and how things will not change until people understand that and deal with it.
--------------------
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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I agree with you - I am trying to point out what the issue looks like from a catholic perspective and how things will not change until people understand that and deal with it.
Pardon me - I just read your post wrong!
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course its a circular argument.
Good job nobody's presented that particular argument then ...
OK, I will confess to possible ignorance here, but I'm pretty sure there is a distinctive "Catholic" (inverted commas) concept of the priesthood, which is shared by RCs, Orthodox, and High Anglicans, and a "Protestant" (inverted commas) view shared by most Protestant groups, including Sydney Anglicans (though not all - I know some "Weslo-Catholics", for example).
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Of course its a circular argument.
Good job nobody's presented that particular argument then ...
OK, I will confess to possible ignorance here, but I'm pretty sure there is a distinctive "Catholic" (inverted commas) concept of the priesthood, which is shared by RCs, Orthodox, and High Anglicans, and a "Protestant" (inverted commas) view shared by most Protestant groups, including Sydney Anglicans (though not all - I know some "Weslo-Catholics", for example).
Yes, there is a distinctive view. But what does that really mean in this case, and does it matter? The claim was that "one obscure sect" (which is really the third-largest Christian denomination in the world) was ordaining women [to the priesthood] in defiance of the rest of the Christian world.
But since most "Protestants" do not share this view of the "priesthood," that puts them outside the Christian world - never mind that this group has huge numbers of adherents and is in fact growing while the others decline.
Do we want to go there, really? I mean, could it not be that the "Protestants" are taking the correct line on this question, and the "Catholics" are not?
[ 28. June 2007, 14:30: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The claim was that "one obscure sect" (which is really the third-largest Christian denomination in the world)
Which, if you believe Wikipedia on both counts, which, on balance, one must, would be round about the level of the 16th most populous country in the world. If Ethopia (of equivalent size) were to decide to, say, ditch its currency and run an entirely barter-based economy, you wouldn't expect the rest of the world to follow suit. The numbers game is a tricky card to play.
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The claim was that "one obscure sect" (which is really the third-largest Christian denomination in the world)
Which, if you believe Wikipedia on both counts, which, on balance, one must, would be round about the level of the 16th most populous country in the world. If Ethopia (of equivalent size) were to decide to, say, ditch its currency and run an entirely barter-based economy, you wouldn't expect the rest of the world to follow suit. The numbers game is a tricky card to play.
My criticism was directed at the words "obscure sect" - I don't think you can consider Anglicanism to be either of these things, given the facts - and wasn't meant to be an argument about who's winning in terms of numbers.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Yes, there is a distinctive view. But what does that really mean in this case, and does it matter? The claim was that "one obscure sect" (which is really the third-largest Christian denomination in the world) was ordaining women [to the priesthood] in defiance of the rest of the Christian world.
But since most "Protestants" do not share this view of the "priesthood," that puts them outside the Christian world - never mind that this group has huge numbers of adherents and is in fact growing while the others decline.
I think there are two issues here.
Firstly, if the functions of a Protestant "priest"(*) are different from those of a Catholic priest, then the fact that Protestants believe women can fulfil priestly functions is irrelevant to a Catholic because the Catholic is looking for evidence that she can fulfil a different set of functions.
Secondly, there is the claim that the Holy Spirit guides the church, or a portion of the church, into truth beyond the Bible. For the Roman Catholic Church this means them only; for the Protestants it means everyone; for the High Anglicans it generally seems to include only them, the Catholics and the Orthodox (though I would welcome correction on this point), so that the Baptist experience is irrelevant. My original claim was that this last position is unsustainable unless you allow that women priests are an authentic part of Holy Tradition.
* Inverted commas not to cast doubt on the validity of their ministry, but because I am still dubious about the number of Protestants, outside the Anglican communion, who would describe their ministers as priests. Ministers, pastors, elders or presbyters, perhaps. Maybe I need to get out more ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Yes, there is a distinctive view. But what does that really mean in this case, and does it matter? The claim was that "one obscure sect" (which is really the third-largest Christian denomination in the world) was ordaining women [to the priesthood] in defiance of the rest of the Christian world.
But since most "Protestants" do not share this view of the "priesthood," that puts them outside the Christian world - never mind that this group has huge numbers of adherents and is in fact growing while the others decline.
I think there are two issues here.
Firstly, if the functions of a Protestant "priest"(*) are different from those of a Catholic priest, then the fact that Protestants believe women can fulfil priestly functions is irrelevant to a Catholic because the Catholic is looking for evidence that she can fulfil a different set of functions.
Secondly, there is the claim that the Holy Spirit guides the church, or a portion of the church, into truth beyond the Bible. For the Roman Catholic Church this means them only; for the Protestants it means everyone; for the High Anglicans it generally seems to include only them, the Catholics and the Orthodox (though I would welcome correction on this point), so that the Baptist experience is irrelevant. My original claim was that this last position is unsustainable unless you allow that women priests are an authentic part of Holy Tradition.
* Inverted commas not to cast doubt on the validity of their ministry, but because I am still dubious about the number of Protestants, outside the Anglican communion, who would describe their ministers as priests. Ministers, pastors, elders or presbyters, perhaps. Maybe I need to get out more ...
Well, the original claim was about "the Holy Spirit .... inspiring the Church" to ordain women. We are merely point out that the words "the Church" is not, in our estimation, a signifier for the Roman Catholic Church alone.
I am Anglican, BTW, and certainly believe that Methodists et al. are part of "the Church." And the Holy Spirit certainly seems to be inspiring many of these to ordain women.
You are right about the word "priest" - but again, I don't see what that has to do with it. If you want to argue that women can't function in a certain capacity, then argue that - but that's not what was originally claimed. At least, not on this thread.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I am Anglican, BTW, and certainly believe that Methodists et al. are part of "the Church." And the Holy Spirit certainly seems to be inspiring many of these to ordain women.
How do you get from the fact that women are being canonically ordained to the assertion that the Holy Spirit seems to be inspiring those Churches to do so? That would seem to be at the heart of the matter.
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I am Anglican, BTW, and certainly believe that Methodists et al. are part of "the Church." And the Holy Spirit certainly seems to be inspiring many of these to ordain women.
How do you get from the fact that women are being canonically ordained to the assertion that the Holy Spirit seems to be inspiring those Churches to do so? That would seem to be at the heart of the matter.
It is, and we can't convince those who are opposed. We can only cast serious doubt on the theology behind that opposition. How do you get from the fact that Christ was incarnate as a man to the assertion that there is some theological significance to his gender?
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I am Anglican, BTW, and certainly believe that Methodists et al. are part of "the Church." And the Holy Spirit certainly seems to be inspiring many of these to ordain women.
How do you get from the fact that women are being canonically ordained to the assertion that the Holy Spirit seems to be inspiring those Churches to do so? That would seem to be at the heart of the matter.
It is, and we can't convince those who are opposed. We can only cast serious doubt on the theology behind that opposition. How do you get from the fact that Christ was incarnate as a man to the assertion that there is some theological significance to his gender?
The Holy Spirit leading the infallible magisterium of the Church ?
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
The Holy Spirit leading the infallible magisterium of the Church ?
Unfortunately, at least half the Christian world does not exactly see it that way.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I am Anglican, BTW, and certainly believe that Methodists et al. are part of "the Church." And the Holy Spirit certainly seems to be inspiring many of these to ordain women.
How do you get from the fact that women are being canonically ordained to the assertion that the Holy Spirit seems to be inspiring those Churches to do so? That would seem to be at the heart of the matter.
It is, and we can't convince those who are opposed. We can only cast serious doubt on the theology behind that opposition. How do you get from the fact that Christ was incarnate as a man to the assertion that there is some theological significance to his gender?
Come on, you can do better than that. This is surely the question that both sides should be asking themselves - "how do we know we aren't wrong"?
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
This is surely the question that both sides should be asking themselves - "how do we know we aren't wrong"?
That's rather my point. I can't prove that the ordination of women is valid. I can only show how, for many, the alternative view doesn't make sense.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
This is surely the question that both sides should be asking themselves - "how do we know we aren't wrong"?
That's rather my point. I can't prove that the ordination of women is valid. I can only show how, for many, the alternative view doesn't make sense.
It isn't about making sense one way or another - many people have spent much time on the same question and have shown, to their own and others' satisfaction, that the ordination of women doesn't work. It is the assertion that the Holy Spirit is guiding those who do ordain women that must be discussed, because the implication is surely that the rest of us are not being guided by the Holy Spirit. And, if those bishops of the Catholic Church who do ordain women are being guided by the Spirit, that means there's a majority of other bishops who aren't.
--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
It isn't about making sense one way or another
I'm not sure how it isn't. For those of us who are unconvinced by attempts to justify a male-only priesthood, it's very much about that.
quote:
many people have spent much time on the same question and have shown, to their own and others' satisfaction, that the ordination of women doesn't work.
And many others have shown that the arguments against are disingenuous and contrived. But neither side has managed to convince everyone, which was precisely my point above.
quote:
It is the assertion that the Holy Spirit is guiding those who do ordain women that must be discussed, because the implication is surely that the rest of us are not being guided by the Holy Spirit. And, if those bishops of the Catholic Church who do ordain women are being guided by the Spirit, that means there's a majority of other bishops who aren't.
Well, I don't think you can just say "This is what must be discussed", as if it's the only unresolved question and you are the arbiter of the discussion. But yes, I think that the "Holy Spirit" arguments (as with same-gender unions) are weak, because we don't know what the Holy Spirit is doing. My belief in the ordination of women doesn't hinge on this argument.
As much as I am loathe to play the numbers game, I do think that much of the Church is set up in a way that makes listening to the Holy Spirit impossible. Several people have rhetorically asked why the Anglican Church is the only one listening to the Holy Spirit. I would say that the Churches in communion with Rome and Constantinople do not allow for such divine input in their polity.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
Ruth Gledhill, in The Times, speculates about the introduction of lay cardinals, including female lay cardinals ... and nominates herself.
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Well, the original claim was about "the Holy Spirit .... inspiring the Church" to ordain women. We are merely point out that the words "the Church" is not, in our estimation, a signifier for the Roman Catholic Church alone.
I am Anglican, BTW, and certainly believe that Methodists et al. are part of "the Church." And the Holy Spirit certainly seems to be inspiring many of these to ordain women.
For the record, I agree. However, I think RC and Orthodox objections to women's ordination are sustainable (on their premises) in a way that High Anglican objections are not.
quote:
You are right about the word "priest" - but again, I don't see what that has to do with it. If you want to argue that women can't function in a certain capacity, then argue that - but that's not what was originally claimed. At least, not on this thread.
Imprecise language is a problem. If Baptists et al don't call their ministers priests, and in fact use "priest" to refer to something different, then speaking as though ministers are equivalent to priests blurs the issue.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
For the record, I agree. However, I think RC and Orthodox objections to women's ordination are sustainable (on their premises) in a way that High Anglican objections are not.
No problem at all. But then, if it's just church policy, why bring the Holy Spirit into it? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(I'd really like to be around on the day the Catholic Church finally begins ordaining women in another hundred years or so. Oh, well. You can't always get what you want.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
The Holy Spirit leading the infallible magisterium of the Church ?
Unfortunately, at least half the Christian world does not exactly see it that way.
As much as half? The RCC counts for well over half in membership. If you add the orthodox you have a massive majority.
--------------------
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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I think if the Catholic Church decided it was possible for women to be ordained, it would become a question of obedience and on those grounds, people opposed would accept it without any malice.
However, I don't believe that Rome will do it in around 100 years. If anything, it may just about be getting close to considering it a matter of faith not to.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
The Holy Spirit leading the infallible magisterium of the Church ?
Unfortunately, at least half the Christian world does not exactly see it that way.
As much as half? The RCC counts for well over half in membership. If you add the orthodox you have a massive majority.
Do the Orthodox now obey the Magisterium? I hadn't realized.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
However, I don't believe that Rome will do it in around 100 years. If anything, it may just about be getting close to considering it a matter of faith not to.
I can't quite see why the OOW would be a "matter of faith." What does it have to do with salvation, or the theology of the cross, or anything else that's core Christian doctrine?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
"Everything is connected to to everything else" -Lenin
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm
Arguements from a symbolic point of view are best expressed at the above link
I didn't realize that Lenin was a Catholic authority, either.
You learn something new every day! Especially on this thread, and when it comes to this topic!
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I know the orthodox don't obey RC magisterium. Just making the point that the overwhelming majority of Christendom, alas, don't support the OOW.
As for core doctrine, for those of us who believe in sacraments, the eucharist and ordination are key outworkings of the doctrine of the incarnation and of the person of the Holy Spirit; also of our doctrine of the Church - and the Church features in all three creeds and is therefore 'doctrine.'
--------------------
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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I know the orthodox don't obey RC magisterium. Just making the point that the overwhelming majority of Christendom, alas, don't support the OOW.
As for core doctrine, for those of us who believe in sacraments, the eucharist and ordination are key outworkings of the doctrine of the incarnation and of the person of the Holy Spirit; also of our doctrine of the Church - and the Church features in all three creeds and is therefore 'doctrine.'
That's really stretching it way too far, Leo. There's nothing about Eucharist or ordination in any of the creeds. (Not sure about the Athanasian, actually - but that's not part of our doctrine.)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Do the Orthodox now obey the Magisterium? I hadn't realized.
Well, we try to. But for us that means the Holy Spirit, not the office of the Pope.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Not sure about the Athanasian, actually - but that's not part of our doctrine.)
Who is "our"? Your profile lists you as an Episcopalian. If that's so then it is indeed part of y/our doctrine as one of the three ecumenical creeds found in the Book of Common Prayer.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
However, I don't believe that Rome will do it in around 100 years. If anything, it may just about be getting close to considering it a matter of faith not to.
I can't quite see why the OOW would be a "matter of faith." What does it have to do with salvation, or the theology of the cross, or anything else that's core Christian doctrine?
To quote a very splendid new deacon in God's Holy Church,
"The problem with liberalism is that it leads you away from truth, and thus away from Christ, and thus towards Hell."
He might say that; I, however, couldn't possibly comment.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Magisterium doesn't mean office of the Pope for us Catholics either. A better description would be the 'Teaching function of the Church, guided by the Holy Ghost'
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
However, I don't believe that Rome will do it in around 100 years. If anything, it may just about be getting close to considering it a matter of faith not to.
I can't quite see why the OOW would be a "matter of faith." What does it have to do with salvation, or the theology of the cross, or anything else that's core Christian doctrine?
To quote a very splendid new deacon in God's Holy Church,
"The problem with liberalism is that it leads you away from truth, and thus away from Christ, and thus towards Hell."
He might say that; I, however, couldn't possibly comment.
Thurible
Love the quote, and, if its meant to be in its 'House of Cards' context, I absolutely agree with it !
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Not sure about the Athanasian, actually - but that's not part of our doctrine.)
Who is "our"? Your profile lists you as an Episcopalian. If that's so then it is indeed part of y/our doctrine as one of the three ecumenical creeds found in the Book of Common Prayer.
No. The official doctrine of the Episcopal Church is found in the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, and that's all. The Athanasian is listed in the "Historical Documents" section.
We are never, ever asked to affirm it, in any of our liturgies, unlike the other two.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
However, I don't believe that Rome will do it in around 100 years. If anything, it may just about be getting close to considering it a matter of faith not to.
I can't quite see why the OOW would be a "matter of faith." What does it have to do with salvation, or the theology of the cross, or anything else that's core Christian doctrine?
To quote a very splendid new deacon in God's Holy Church,
"The problem with liberalism is that it leads you away from truth, and thus away from Christ, and thus towards Hell."
He might say that; I, however, couldn't possibly comment.
Thurible
Well, assertion is always fun, I agree, if you can't make the case using argument!
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
An argument:
As the epistle appointed for Mass this morning (in the Church of England, at least) reminded us, heretics will not inherit the Kingdom.
Argument enough?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
An argument:
As the epistle appointed for Mass this morning (in the Church of England, at least) reminded us, heretics will not inherit the Kingdom.
Argument enough?
Thurible
Gee, nothing about OoW in there, either. Funny, that....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
The message of Our Lady at Fatima to the world says the same as the passage of the Epistle Thurible described
[ 01. July 2007, 20:32: Message edited by: Vesture, Posture, Gesture ]
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(But it is interesting that you are now directly condemning a good portion of the Christian world to Hell, simply because they disagree with you on the Ordination of Women. Amazing that people will go so far to defend their pet causes....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Point me to where I said anything about my believing anyone would go to Hell, please. I referred to a holy deacon; I quoted S. Paul. I haven't bothered to engage with you for quite a while on this thread because it seems that painting the Sistine Chapel with a daisy petal would be more fun.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Point me to where I said anything about my believing anyone would go to Hell, please. I referred to a holy deacon; I quoted S. Paul. I haven't bothered to engage with you for quite a while on this thread because it seems that painting the Sistine Chapel with a daisy petal would be more fun.
Thurible
Well, I must say that these are also some quite interesting debate techniques. Carefully citing sources and then disassociating oneself from them - and then the classic ad hominem as the coup de grace.
I shall now swoon and admit defeat.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Splendid. Thank you very much.
Thurible
(will probably back in a couple of days; really can't be arsed at the moment to approach this in a serious way. Sorry.)
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Thurible, one ought not lightly to call another Christian a heretic, or imply that a fellow Christian or group of Christians are heretics. Heretics are those who willfully dissent from the de fide teaching of the Church. They are not people who disagree with Church teaching simpliciter. Nor are they people who happen to disagree with one, or even people one thinks are behaving in a damaging way)
And the less theologically liberal amongst us (I include myself) ought to recall another passage of scripture - the one about specks and planks. Karl Rahner reminds us that historically significant heresies have tended to be conservative. Arius, for example, wanted to defend scriptural faith against the incursion of the secular loan-word homoousious. I imagine these days he would have found a home in Reform.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Not sure about the Athanasian, actually - but that's not part of our doctrine.)
Who is "our"? Your profile lists you as an Episcopalian. If that's so then it is indeed part of y/our doctrine as one of the three ecumenical creeds found in the Book of Common Prayer.
No. The official doctrine of the Episcopal Church is found in the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, and that's all. The Athanasian is listed in the "Historical Documents" section.
We are never, ever asked to affirm it, in any of our liturgies, unlike the other two.
Nonetheless, as outre as the Episcopal Church has gotten, I doubt that it has formally renounced any of the three ecumenical creeds. That would place outside of at least Western Christianity.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
