Posted on 02/07/2006 6:39:39 PM PST by sionnsar
THE Church of England is expected to commit itself today to the ordination of women bishops — the cost being unity with the Roman Catholic Church.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy- O’Connor, the leader of the four million Roman Catholics in England and Wales, expressed disappointment yesterday at the end of an ecumenical dream.
It was “inevitable” that there would be women bishops in the Anglican Church and so ecumenism was “at a plateau”. As co-chairman of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission for 16 years, the Cardinal spent much of his earlier ministry bringing about closer relations between the two churches.
Yesterday he said that he was saddened that many of its conclusions, such as in the area of authority, had not been “received” into the Anglican Church.
Read it all and there is more here and there.
Update: There are two BBC Radio segments on this here and there.
Agreed.
You jumped on me a bit quickly. My "however" in the very next sentence explained what all three of us agree on - women cannot celebrate the sacraments - not because of the superior abilities of men, but because Jesus was not a woman. It's a sacramental thing.
Regards
It is not mere church law regulating the sacraments that is violated. Female priests destroy the fundamental nature of the relationship between Christ and His Church. That relationship is nuptual, when the essentially male energy of Christ penetrates the Church as they unite in one mystical body and produce the offspring of Christendom. The Church is essentially female in it as she is the nurturing mother to us and the obedient partner to the head of the household Christ the Bridegroom. A woman cannot marry Christ's church and cannot be a father to the flock, it puts the entire theology of St. Paul's epistle to Ephesians upside down.
Worse: It turns God into a lesbian.
Of course you are correct. There are a few female bishops, who like the majority (unfortunately) of male bishops, were promoted for their idealogy rather than their theology.
-- but the results of women bishops in the Anglican communion seem dire: leading in a straight path to the rise of Gene Robinson.
I disagreed with you because the results of LEFTIST bishops lead straight (is straight an oxymoron here?) to a Gene Robinson, who is after all, as much a symptom of a deeper problem as he is a problem himself. The woman part may or may not be a problem of its own, but that is not the problem here. (I happen to think the woman part is not a problem).
I wish that more of the women priests would be predisposed toward the traditional rites and put aside political ideology...
I agree with you wholeheartedly, and would simply add that I wish the more of the male priests would also be predisposed toward the traditional rites and put aside political ideology.
Are you an Episcopalian?
I'm not sure any more.
Homosexual bishops, female bishops, it's all a part of the same illness--the "Theology of Whatever."
we are considering them not "holy" enough.
I think that is pretty much why some consider women unfit for the priesthood. I hope I didn't misunderstand you.
Hmmm - are you equating homosexuality with female-ness? They should be treated the same way, lumped into the same argument?
That's why I became a Catholic, even though my family was Episcopalian for six generations (if you don't count one intervening guy who got a wild hair and became a Methodist).
I'm afraid the Episcopal Church in America is too compromised to survive this latest battle. I can't wait around while they duke it out -- I have children to raise and would prefer NOT to raise them in a heretical brothel, thank you very much.
In a way...yes. What a lot of folks in & out of ECUSA fail to recognize is the link between women's ordination & the subsequent promotion of the homosexual agenda. It's tit for tat, ladies & gentlemen. It was the feminist (read "lesbian") lobby of the late 70's & their still closeted friends (like V. Gene Robinson) who turned the tide in opening up ECUSA's priesthood to women. It was done for two purposes: 1) install theologically & doctrinally weak individuals into positions of power within the church who can be easily duped into accepting the incrementalism of the homosexual agenda, and, 2) to assure that these women will respond "in kind" by actually promoting the acceptance of homosexual priests & bishops. Once the heirarchy of the church is predominantly female & homosexual (which it is now), it becomes a rather simple matter to dispense with the church's historic doctrine & teaching on homosexual relations as sinful & same-sex marriage & the "homosexual lifestyle" as impossible & disordered. It simply requires a majority vote (which they have) at the next General Convention (which they consistantly have done).
It's very much like what happened during the Civil Right's Movement during the 60's. The Women's Movement (which had not yet been taken over by the lesbian contingent) were major supporters of the Civil Right's Movement. The presumption at that time was that when American Blacks "got theirs," they would remember the help they received from Women's Right's Activists & return the favor by supporting the women's agenda. Tit for tat. That didn't happen, of course, & I vividly remember the grousing in the ranks about it at the time. That's why, when lesbians & gays offered their support to the feminists fighting for ordination in the ECUSA, it was with the promise that "when we get ours" (unlike those in the Civil Right's Movement)WE'LL remember who are friends were & help them "get theirs."
How do I know this, you say? Because, I'm ashamed to admit, in addition to being a FORMER Episcopalian, I am also a FORMER card-carrying member of NOW.
As the saying goes...to soon old, too late smart. I have this vision of Dezi Arnez as St. Peter at The Gate, saying, "Torqe...you got some 'splainin' to do!"
I hadn't brought up the feminist/lesbian connection, but I also have observed that. Many of the female priests who came through our former parish were radical feminists and man-haters (hate is SUCH a good foundation for a holy life in the priesthood . . . NOT!), some were lesbians, and one had the gall to show up at church events with her "partner" and engage in "inappropriate behavior". They did fire that one (that was a number of years ago) but I bet they wouldn't fire her now . . .
I would also advance the theory that all of this flows from disobedience. Disobedience to Scripture, to Tradition, and to the canons of the church. All are being ignored in favor of "What's Happenin' Now".
Dear Cronos, jo kus, and anyone else,
First, see #17:
"Well, if that was what jo kus was saying, then it was unclear to me. However, I could just be dense. ;-)
"In that case, I offer my comment as explanation for the equally dense."
If I "jumped quickly," my apologies.
But jo kus' post was ambiguous to me, and frankly, folks' efforts to clear it up don't entirely remove the ambiguity.
Jo kus initially said:
"Women are quite 'capable' of being a priest. Certainly, they can present homilies and execute the sacraments, humanly speaking."
At the very best, this is very ambiguous, and can easily be interpreted as an error. Women cannot "execute the sacraments" (save baptism). Period. A woman could kneel before the bishop, the bishop could lay hands, say all the right words to ordain the woman, and nothing would happen. The woman would not become a priest.
Upon being not ordained, if the woman were then to hear her first confession, or say her first Mass, nothing would happen at the words, "I absolve...," the bread would stay bread and the wine would stay wine at the words, "This is My Body," "This is My Blood."
That's not "executing the sacraments." That's simulating the sacraments.
Now, jo kus added "humanly speaking." Perhaps by that, he is more or less changing the meaning to "simulating" the sacraments. That doesn't seem the best reading, but if that was his intention, then that's great, and I offer my comments only as clarification for his otherwise excellent points.
The problem is that the language after the "However" is also ambiguous, and not clear to my slow, dense mind. My apologies for that, too.
Jo kus doesn't say, "We can't use motor oil to baptize..." but rather, "We don't use motor oil to baptize."
He goes on to say, "We don't use broccoli and root beer to confect the Body of Christ. And we don't use woman to be 'in the person of Christ' simply because Jesus was a man."
Again, not "can't" but rather "don't."
This leaves open the possibility that what's being said is that these things are being proscribed, they are forbidden. One could interpret this paragraph to mean that to do them would be to violate God's Law. That to ordain a woman would violate Divine Law. That for a woman to confect the Blessed Sacrament would be a violation of God's Law.
Well, again, if jo kus didn't mean it that way, again, I apologize. However, I think that interpretation is more than reasonable. And untrue, or at least quite incomplete.
Ordaining women, women hearing Confession or saying Mass are not like murder, theft, or adultery, where one SHOULD NOT do the thing, but certainly could. They are impossibilities.
It isn't that it is forbidden to ordain women, or for women to perform the sacramental functions. It is that it isn't possible to ordain a woman, or for her to perform the sacramental functions. Nothing actually happens if the words and rubrics are followed on or by a woman. That is why Pope John Paul II did not teach that the Church SHOULDN'T ordain women, even that it is forbidden by Divine Law, but rather that the Church CAN'T ordain women, that it is beyond the power of the Church to do so.
If that is what jo kus MEANT, that's great.
But that wasn't at all clear to me, and from Cronos' reply, which seems equally ambiguous, I'm not sure it was clear, generally.
sitetest
we are on the same page, brother. Sorry for the confusion and lack of precision. I thought my first post was clear enough to show that women were physically capable of performing the rite, but sacramentally, nothing would happen, since Christ chose not to come as a woman and the celebrant is supposed to be acting "in the person of Christ". God COULD have chosen to come as a woman, OR COULD HAVE chosen to make His Presence known through broccoli. The fact is that He didn't. The sign is supposed to carry out what is symbolizes.
Regards
Dear jo kus,
Okay, thanks.
Again, I apologize if I came on strong or too hard.
There are a lot of folks running around who are not accurately representing the position of the Church, characterizing the teaching that although ordination of women is FORBIDDEN (even rightly so), it is not impossible. Even my old pastor, who was an otherwise pretty orthodox fellow, didn't understand the difference. To that is what I was responding.
sitetest
I understand. It is too easy for someone to post something or teach something that is not true and pass it off as if it was. Keep up the good work in keeping people honest!
Regards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.