Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 10      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,701
Reply with quote  #46 
Thanks, Aaron, and I appreciate it. There is certainly no rush, only do it if you are interested yourself and when convenient. I will also read the paper the Baron kindly linked to, haven't yet as I've been out all day. As far as John Paul II's ex cathedra pronouncement is concerned, I understand of course that Catholics consider it binding, but I wonder if there were reasons given? As I understand it, such pronouncements are supposed to be preceded by consultations, and one would expect more than just a simple "no women". I had also understood that since Papal Infallibility was formalised there have only been two infallible decrees, one concerning the Assumption and the other the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. But perhaps this was a third.

I take royalcello's point, as well as yours that entry is not automatic even for men who possess all the credentials. But refusal is automatic for women who do, so there is no denying the fact of discrimination. The question is, is it justified? I'm not denying that it might be, it's just that I haven't seen that established.

Papal Infallibility actually drove a whole slew of Catholics who couldn't stomach the doctrine out of their Church, becoming the Old Catholics discussed on another thread. Various changes at various times have caused schism, and denied certain believers their vision of the Church. It happened in Russia with the Old Believers, burned at the stake for adhering to Orthodoxy the way it had previously always been. While I both understand and respect the unwillingness of royalcello and others to countenance women's ordination, it is hardly anything new to have a split in the Church. Any Church.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,776
Reply with quote  #47 
Here is the document (actually 1994) to which Aaron and hence Peter are referring:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pope John Paul II

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.


Probably the best thing he ever wrote.  Traditionalist writer Chris Ferrara in refuting the sedevacantists has pointed out that in this letter, especially in the above passage, even JP2 spoke with the clear and decisive voice of the great popes of the past.

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #48 
With the floundering of the Anglican Communion, there is no real safety left for those who accept the necessity of the married male episcopate among those who recognize themselves to have an episcopate.  It is heart-breaking.  The most the 'pro WO' folks can muster is 'it might not be prohibited, and could be good'.  They have no text commanding it. 

Yet they (for the most part) would bind the conscience of others on their wishes, knowing they argue against Tradition, and without Text.  'Reason' not founded on Text or Tradition is a very short leg to stand on. 

__________________
"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
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,776
Reply with quote  #49 
They think they have Galatians 3:28, which apparently suddenly appeared in the Bible for the first time in the 1960s, having never been seen before. 
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,776
Reply with quote  #50 
By the way, my posting a papal pronouncement should not be taken to mean that I believe Women's "Ordination" is wrong because the pope said so.  That would be an odd position for an Anglican to take.  Rather, I believe the pope said so because it's wrong--a crucial distinction that liberal Catholics who seem to think the pope can decree whatever he wants don't understand.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,701
Reply with quote  #51 
The distinction seems clear enough. I read the Baron's linked paper, well I read most of it and skimmed some, and the Papal pronouncement. I did not find the paper edifying, as both pros and cons took time out from the issue they were purportedly discussing for gratuitous condemnation of homosexuals. It was in places interesting. All the Biblical verses with bearing on the subject are given and discussed, at least I presume all. There aren't really that many, and most it seems are capable of interpretation either way. Some of St Paul's pronouncements, it was more or less admitted, are not capable of interpretation at all.

So that didn't settle much. Nor to my mind did the Papal pronouncement. The Apostles argument is weak, and the pros in the paper dealt with it quite handily. Essentially they said that the Apostles were a unique institution during Christ's earthly ministry, there has been no continuing group of twelve, and they set no precedent. Seems fair. The other Papal point was that it has always been this way. Yes, and why, and should it still be? The late Pope certainly left the last not in doubt, but the reasons as cloudy as usual. I think I shall give up.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #52 
Come now, you can't mean you think the 1 Timothy  and Titus passages can be 'interpreted either way'.  Thrown out as 'cultural' perhaps or 'for a limited time only', as the pro-WO folks read them perhaps.  But even they admit that for that time and place they can not be 'read to mean' anything other than 'no women folks in leadership in the church'.

I'm not as sensitive as you are to the 'homosexuality' discussion, but the only reference to it I could find (on page 34 of 141) is joined with other sexual sins - "homosexuality, adultery and fornication", in the single paragraph "An argument from the nature and state of human sexuality:"

Let me know which others I have missed.  Gratuitous attacks aren't something I'll keep knowingly in my library.

__________________
"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: 6,701
Reply with quote  #53 
That is in the cons opening argument. I do not appreciate being classed with adulterers and fornicators, and appreciated the page 45 comment in the pro opening argument, given below, even less. "Unnatural and contrary to Creation"; kindly then explain how come people including me get born in this unnatural condition? I have never been any other way and it is perfectly natural to me. It is also a lie to say that homosexuality is condemned "throughout" the Old and New Testaments. It is not condemned anywhere in the Gospels, rather an important part of the New Testament I would have thought.

These are only two passages in a long paper, but I still found it depressing that both sides took the trouble to step aside from the topic at hand for these attacks, which were not germane to their arguments.

I thought the pros handled the 1 Timothy 3 and the very similar Titus passages very well, actually. They are not capable of being read as specifically approving women as bishops, but they don't specifically exclude them either. You could argue that Paul thought that so obvious that it didn't need saying, but the fact remains that he didn't say it.

A tricky one is in 1 Timothy 2. I would have to admit, though they don't, that the pros are struggling desperately here. However the cons are also having a problem, as Paul is here cheerfully contradicting many other things that he himself wrote. Their attempts to reconcile are near as desperate as those of the pros. I think it is reasonable to say that the passage is difficult of interpretation when placed in the overall context of Paul's teachings, and therefore cannot be regarded as resolving the argument.

An even more difficult passage is in 1 Corinthians 14. The pro arguments here are frankly ridiculous. But the cons again are struggling to make sense of the passage in the overall context of the writings, and their attempts are once more just as desperate in their way as those of the pros. Same as 1 Timothy 2 but more so, I would say. And that if Paul had wished to be followed in all respects he could have striven for more consistency and clarity both.

Finally, the attack of the pros. Although it was interesting to see all the relevant passages cited and debated, and to read the more general arguments, my overall reaction was one of distaste and, with Mercutio, "a plague on both your houses". And not solely from this and the other attack, but the general tone of both sides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pro WO bigots
It is also important to note that the "one flesh" union is only between husband and wife. It is
a unique union and is not between parents and children. Of course, it is also not between men
and men or women and women. Sexual intimacy between parent and child or between
persons of the same sex is unnatural and contrary to Creation; and it is clearly declared to be
so throughout the Old and New Testaments. Sexual intimacy is to be between husband and
wife.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #54 
At least you're able to remark on both sides.  Finding a paper that really tries to cover 'both sides' ain't easy....

Still, you gotta be kidding me.  You think
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Titus 1"
"5For this reason I left you in (T)Crete, that you would set in order what remains and (U)appoint (V)elders in every city as I directed you,
 6namely, (W)if any man is above reproach, the (X)husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of (Y)dissipation or (Z)rebellion"

doesn't specifically exclude women from being elders (priests/bishops - the presbytery)? 

The 1 Corinthians 14 passage shouldn't be a 'struggle' - women, don't teach, be quiet!  Just like in 1 Timothy 2 (both passage are tied to 'teaching' distinguishing it from 'praying' which is permitted).

I think both sides were trying to make sure that they weren't seen as advocating same-sex union/marriage (a matter that is related - as your first post here testifies).  It could have been left out of the paper.  They do seem to tie it in to the 'matter at hand' though, I'd not call it 'gratitious'.


__________________
"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: 6,701
Reply with quote  #55 
The 1 Corinthians passage is only difficult because elsewhere Paul is specifically approving of women both teaching and speaking, prophesying in fact. Paul still didn't say "no women" in Titus. You can certainly and quite reasonably read the passage as confining the episcopate to men, but there is that tiny bit of wiggle room, which is all that is needed.

Both sides are writing from the evangelical perspective, which is just as narrow, sin-obsessed and devoid of charity as that of Rome. A plague on all three of their houses. They could just as well have omitted the attacks from the paper, as you acknowledge, but chose not to. They were not essential to or even part of the arguments of either side, so I think gratuitous is fair. The paper was not about same-sex marriage, was in fact nothing to do with same-sex marriage, and it is also not that but homosexual relations in general that it takes time out to condemn. Although obnoxious to me the paper does contain much of interest. I can certainly see why you linked it and am (mostly) not sorry to have read it, so thanks again.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #56 
What woman is the husband of a wife Peter?
Where does he commend women who teach in the communal worship (church) setting? 

Narrow? Yes.
Sin Obsessed? Maybe.
Devoid of Charity?  Peter, I'm hurt.
Lots of things I plead guilty to, but not that.

The paper was about 'one change in tradition at this time' and not about any other.  They poorly addressed there desire to not be associated with the other 'change in the air'. 

I'm glad you were able to get some 'good' out of it.  I wish it had 'stayed on topic'.

__________________
"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: 6,701
Reply with quote  #57 
None that I know of. Some women are lawfully married to other women according to the laws of the jurisdiction they married in, but the terminology for such spouses is far from settled. That they are both wives seems more reasonable than to say that either is a husband. Anyway, St Paul certainly didn't have that in mind! His language is defining but could, just, be said to be not exclusionary. I admit that this is the less obvious interpretation, but it is still a possible one.

He doesn't commend women who teach in that setting, but does commend them teaching, so fairly inarguably contradicts himself and once again, though in a different way, thereby gives wiggle room.

I am sorry if you are hurt. Of course there are Evangelicals and Evangelicals, just as there are Catholics and Catholics. I do not doubt your charity, just that of the movement as a whole. And at this point I would like to retire from the topic. I'm going out in a minute anyway, and will do my best to stay out of it after I return.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #58 
Sorry to have chased you away from the topic.
It is a relief to know you didn't mean this evangelical was without charity.


He does tell women to teach other women.
My wife shares leadership in a 'ladies only' Sunday School Class, we both think she's the type commended, not ones like the PB.

__________________
"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: 6,701
Reply with quote  #59 
I'm just thoroughly bored with it, Baron. I know it doesn't look that way but I never was that interested, and it is not you that chased me off but just the length of time we have gone on with it. And now I am off out, have a nice day, night or whatever it is where you are.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #60 
Thanks,
Day will break here soon.
Then I'll be able to go home, eat supper, and go to bed.
I hate the vampire lifestyle.
Love ya!

__________________
"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
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.