Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 10      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #31 
There are seven sacraments. It is a stretch to say that all were ordained by Christ. Extreme unction? Confirmation? Confession in the form the Church practices it? And baptism predated Him. As for Christ being a guy, I expect so. But He was a woman for a few brief weeks in the womb, as were we all. He was also a Jew, is that a prerequisite? And a human, we can at least agree on that being necessary. Perhaps that's all that is.

The priest stands in for Christ the Bridegroom towards the Church, His bride. I've seen that argument. How about when he stands for the Church, the bride, towards the Bridegroom? It's all symbolic anyway. If males can be part of the bride, why can't females stand for the Bridegroom?

And how can you cite St Paul on the subject when your Church just blatantly ignores what St Paul said in the passage the Baron quoted? I am all in favour of being selective with Scripture, particularly St Paul who, despite the grace with which he sometimes writes, can also seem like an abominable human being with persecution and hatred in his marrow. But if you're going to be selective with Scripture, you can't then fall back on its authority.

Finally, when was the bull of Boniface VIII known as Unam Sanctam repealed? Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,446
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I must admit that I prefer the perspective of an Anglo-French online friend who I think used to post here as "GrumpyTroll," once a staunch trad Catholic, who has lost his faith and now identifies as an agnostic, but remains a traditionalist, opposed to female "priests" (and much other modern silliness).


I'm curious, do you mean he is an agnostic who still attends a traditionalist rite, or just traditionalist in his views?

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,446
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron
I said nothing about "ought not". Rome contends that they should, but that alone isn't keeping them from being valid churches. From our perspective, they are in schism, but they have valid orders. The Church of England, according to our theology, does not. Valid orders = valid sacraments = valid Christian church.


I think the Anglican Church is schismatic, but with valid orders like the Orthodox.   So the RCC view is that the orthodox have valid orders because they could trace their apostolic succession by a road not through Rome, but the Anglicans can't?   What's pathetic is that Anglicans are usually now more high church than the Catholics.   

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,446
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
The traditional Anglican position is substantially the same as the Roman, the same as the Orthodox, the same as virtually all Christians before the world went insane.  (Or rather even more insane, since a lot of other things were destroyed first.)


That seems right to me.  I actually like the idea that a church can be catholic and traditionalist, but not under Rome.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #35 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I must admit that I prefer the perspective of an Anglo-French online friend who I think used to post here as "GrumpyTroll," once a staunch trad Catholic, who has lost his faith and now identifies as an agnostic, but remains a traditionalist, opposed to female "priests" (and much other modern silliness).


I'm curious, do you mean he is an agnostic who still attends a traditionalist rite, or just traditionalist in his views?


Traditionalist in his political and aesthetic views, though he still occasionally attends traditional Catholic services, without, of course, taking communion.  His loss of faith is no secret as he identifies as "Agnostique" on Facebook.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponocrates
I think the Anglican Church is schismatic, but with valid orders like the Orthodox.   So the RCC view is that the orthodox have valid orders because they could trace their apostolic succession by a road not through Rome, but the Anglicans can't?   What's pathetic is that Anglicans are usually now more high church than the Catholics.   


The Roman position is that changes in the ordination formula in 1549 under Edward VI by deleting certain explicit references to the sacrificial nature of the priesthood invalidated Anglican orders, making Anglican priests and bishops mere laymen unlike Eastern Orthodox priests and bishops whose orders (though schismatic) Rome does not question.

Low Church Anglicans don't care; High Church Anglicans obviously disagree. 

One point that I think Anglican apologists have made is that some Eastern Catholic ordination rites never disputed by Rome also omit some of the same language that Rome claimed was so crucial.  Since Leo XIII (the same pope who told French Catholics to rally to the Republic, so not a favorite of mine) issued his ruling in 1896, the issue has been further complicated by the participation of some Old Catholic bishops (whose orders are recognized by Rome) in some 20th-century Anglican ordinations.   It was for this reason that when Graham Leonard (1921-2010), former Bishop of London (1981-91), went over to Rome in 1994, his ordination as a Roman Catholic priest was conditional, not absolute, implying that Rome could not be certain that he was not already a priest.  But the "Dutch Touch" is not the end of it.  Even Jovan, obliged as a Roman Catholic to agree with Leo XIII, has suggested here that a Spanish former Roman Catholic bishop may have participated in Anglican ordinations after the 1660 Restoration, the formula under Charles II being somewhat more catholic than that under Edward VI.

Thanks to WO, there may come a time when [Canterbury] Anglicans holding my position (if there still are any) may not be able to be certain of any Anglican orders either (a male "priest" "ordained" by a female "bishop" is not a priest either), but we're not quite there yet.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #37 
Peter,
Our Lord enjoined Baptism and the Lords Supper (Communion) as 'rituals' of the Church to be performed by the churches and their members.  hence the 'two ordinances/sacraments of the Lord'.

Yes, I have troubles with Rome's celibate episcopate, I can see it as 'sliding in' for the presbyters/priests but not Bishops.  The Anglican Married Male Episcopate follows the 'text' much more exactly than does the current 'Roman' (Latin) Rite.  The East has a few widower Bishops.

Now they (Anglicans) are gong nuts, letting women think they're priests, and Bishops - It is nearly enough to drive a man back to the local High Church Baptists...

Royal,
There are several of the African Provinces that are WO  Free, fully in communion (at present) with the ABC.  Perhaps you could get 'extra-Provincial Primatal Oversight) for a 'conditional ordination' of a properly high-church Pisky....


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,446
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
Traditionalist in his political and aesthetic views, though he still occasionally attends traditional Catholic services, without, of course, taking communion.  His loss of faith is no secret as he identifies as "Agnostique" on Facebook.


I tend to be that way somewhat.   I have respect for the history and tradition of the church and its aesthetics can be persuasive.   There is something divine at work, or it seems so, when I listen to Palestrina or Victoria.  I would prefer to advance the aesthetic, contemplative, and even humanitarian aspects of religion, however, it's hard for me to deal with it intellectually especially when it requires faith in certain propositions.   Also, I think it is too dogmatic about certain moral issues.  It's better to think through ethical problems rather than dictate (some humility, please) and I could use more of the Mother than the Father in the Church. 

By the way thanks for your explanation in the next post.   I prefer Anglicanism because it is more similar to the Western (Roman) Catholic Church and Rite than say Eastern Orthodoxy.    I've tried the latter and although I appreciate the iconography and beauty of their churches and their ancient beginnings, the long standing and chanting is too foreign and tedious to me.  Also, in the US, most Orthodox churches are affiliated with a certain nationality, which makes me feel like a foreigner and outside the group.   I prefer the Western aesthetic and rite partly from familiarity.  The Anglican Church (at least the High church side of it) seems like an enriching variation of the Western church, which should be encouraged.   However, I still believe in a catholic church (small "c") and like to see more bonds and a show of mutual respect with similar churches like the RCC, the Orthodox churches, and some others, who still try to keep their traditional (not just scriptural) foundation.

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #39 
Father Matt Kennedy (N=Bingham New Your) and the church of the Good Shepard (ACNA) is a decent example of combination of High Ritual and Evangelical Theology that Anglicanism permits.

Unfortunately even in the ACNA (and even in Fr. Matt's parish) they've lost their link to the married male episcopate.  Seems that dicoses of the south (ACNA) is WO free, and as are the REC affiliated Parishes - though I've not seen or heard of any of them that have the smells, bells, crucifixes and screens as Good Shepard does....

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #40 
Having been talking elsewhere about my respect for Christian tradition, I wanted to try to reconcile that with the tentative support for women's ordination I have expressed here, which I don't deny is against tradition. Firstly, it is not so much support as questioning of the theological basis for opposition; an academic enquiry, if you will. Secondly, while I regard tradition as very important and not to be overturned without extremely good reason, that is not the same as saying it should never be changed. Just very reluctantly, and with due respect for it and its original causes, and only when it is entirely necessary or at least very strongly desirable to change.

Do these conditions apply to the tradition of a male-only priesthood? I'm not sure. All I have been doing on this thread is questioning. I have said that I am not passionate on the issue, and that is true. I am open to conviction either way, and if I never get the question resolved in my own mind I won't lose sleep. On the specific point raised against me of my support of existing succession laws which give males either preference or exclusivity in the line of succession, further to my previous reply I would point out that these laws affect very few individuals. That does not make them right, though for other reasons I think they are, but it does mean that they are not really a fair comparison to traditions which exclude the entire female sex, billions of people, from positions which number in the millions, rather than the handful of surviving thrones.

A rather whimsical point is that Salic law, inheritance by males only through purely agnatic descent, is in fact one of only two systems which actually preserves the genes of the founder in a line. The other, uterine inheritance, was used in some lines in antiquity, notably ancient Egypt, but has for long been in desuetude. Due to genetic recombination, with a cognatic system it is entirely possible that after a number of generations the current heir will possess not one single gene from the founder. However the Y chromosome does not recombine, and is passed unchanged from father to son. Similarly mitochondrial DNA does not recombine and is passed unchanged from mother to children, then from daughters to their children and so on (males have it from the mother, but do not transmit it). Of course male-only succession did not come into being for that reason, since nobody back then had a glimmering of the existence of genes. But it is rather funny that, barring what are known as non-paternity events (translation: unfaithful wives), male-only succession does have that flimsy genetic justification.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Secondly, while I regard tradition as very important and not to be overturned without extremely good reason, that is not the same as saying it should never be changed. Just very reluctantly, and with due respect for it and its original causes, and only when it is entirely necessary or at least very strongly desirable to change.


That certainly does not describe the attitude that has been displayed by most supporters of Women's "Ordination"...

Quote:
On the specific point raised against me of my support of existing succession laws which give males either preference or exclusivity in the line of succession, further to my previous reply I would point out that these laws affect very few individuals. That does not make them right, though for other reasons I think they are, but it does mean that they are not really a fair comparison to traditions which exclude the entire female sex, billions of people, from positions which number in the millions, rather than the handful of surviving thrones.


But we monarchists by definition are not content that there are only a "handful," are we?  And aristocratic and royal inheritance together would theoretically affect a number of people not incomparable to the priesthood.   (Two of the three Estates...)  After all, the vast majority of Christian men will never be priests either.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #42 
The vast majority wouldn't want to be, but they can if prepared to jump through the necessary hoops. Women who want to be simply cannot. You can't be royal either if not born that way (or not Napoleon), but it's really not quite the same thing. Exclusivity through birth is essential to the existence of royalty; the priesthood should be attainable through study, merit and willingness to vow. Women can do the study and have the merit and be prepared to vow, but still no one will ordain them. I can see why women would be upset over that, though whether they should in fact have ordination open to them I'm still not sure.

I am sure that I would like more thrones, though aristocracy proliferates too much to my mind. I prefer the approach of Elizabeth I, who ended up with fewer peers than she started with, to that of James I who was so liberal with his creations as to devalue the institution. While if you added up all the theoretical thrones and actual peerage titles in the world you would come up with a large number, I think it would be less than the number of congregations needing ministers. In any case something for which the qualification is and only ever can be birth, with rare exceptions, is different from something for which the qualification is merit. Unless you are a woman, in which case you can't have it whatever your merit might be.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #43 
If you're really interested in an 'academic' (or at least 'scholarly') discussion you might try here: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?cid=1&lid=4  (Virtue only does some silliness, but the paper is the AMiA one on Woman's Ordination, and seems to give pretty fare shake to all the possible combinations.

The Baptist 'Faith and Message' simply says 'only men are biblically qualified' - the paper looks at those who would ignore the scriptures, and why....

A woman can't 'merit' ordination to head a Christian Congregation.  They're not qualified.  Says so in the 'rule book'.


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 429
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Women can do the study and have the merit and be prepared to vow, but still no one will ordain them. I can see why women would be upset over that, though whether they should in fact have ordination open to them I'm still not sure.

Umm... this is not necessarily true. I've known plenty of men that were turned down for the seminary for various reasons -- everything from being too traditional in their liturgical tastes, to being too old, to having medical problems that were too expensive to deal with. Ultimately, it is at the discretion of the church as to who its clergy will be. 

As far as your other objections... I'm sorry, I really can't answer them right now, because I need to read up on it (never read Unam Sanctum, need to find scriptural references, need to look up the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas on which proscriptions by St. Paul were immutable dogma and which were mutable law and why). What I can tell you is in the 80's, Pope John Paul II made an ex-cathedra proclamation that the Church has no authority to ordain women. Again, I should look that up to provide you with citations. (Yes, I realize that this is meaningless to non-Catholics, but that alone justifies the Catholic stance, as all Catholics are bound to believe such declarations.)

 Marriage and a young child and job hunting while working too many hours in my current job has really cut into my time of late. I do honestly hope to get back to you.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #45 
If we're going to talk about excluding people, let's not forget that a single female "celebrant" automatically excludes from "her" congregation all Anglicans who simply continue to believe nothing more or less than what all liturgical Christians had always believed about the priesthood, people who would not have been excluded anywhere prior to 1994 (1976 in the US).  Seems like a high price to pay for her Girl Power trip. 

There is no "right" to be a priest--for anyone.  Christians do have a right to unambiguously valid sacraments and leadership that preserves tradition rather than destroying it & tries to unite Christians rather than divide them.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: