Posted on 07/08/2006 9:23:38 AM PDT by WestTexasWend
By coincidence, a potentially historic speech about women that received little media fanfare was made two weeks before America's Episcopal Church elected Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as its leader, the first female to head a branch of the international Anglican Communion.
The speaker was Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican's top official on relations with non-Catholic Christians, addressing a private session with the Church of England's bishops and certain women priests.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the 77 million Anglicans, invited Kasper to discuss the English church's projected move to allow women bishops. To date, only the United States, Canada and New Zealand have female Anglican bishops.
Official Catholic and Anglican negotiators have spent four decades working toward shared Communion and full recognition of each other's clergy and doctrine. Mincing no words, Kasper said that goal of restoring full relations "would realistically no longer exist" if Anglicanism's mother church in England consecrates women bishops.
"The shared partaking of the one Lord's table, which we long for so earnestly, would disappear into the far and ultimately unreachable distance. Instead of moving towards one another, we would coexist alongside one another," Kasper warned, though some cooperation would continue.
In the New Testament and throughout church history, Kasper explained, bishops have been "the sign and the instrument of unity" for local dioceses and Christianity worldwide. Thus, women bishops would be far more damaging than England's women priests.
This centrality of bishops also explains why within world Anglicanism there's far more upset about U.S. Episcopalians' consecration of an openly gay bishop than earlier ordinations of gay priests. But Kasper didn't repeat Rome's equally fervent opposition to gay clergy.
The cardinal said women bishops should be elevated only after "overwhelming consensus" is reached with Catholicism and like-minded Eastern Orthodoxy.
Anglicans cannot assume Catholicism will someday drop objections to female priests and bishops, Kasper said. "The Catholic Church is convinced that she has no right to do so."
Why? Casual Western onlookers might suppose Catholicism's stance is simple gender prejudice, but Kasper cited theological convictions that some Anglicans share.
The Vatican first explained its opposition to women priests in 1975 after then-Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggan notified Pope Paul VI that Anglicans overall saw "no fundamental objections in principle" to female clergy. That year, the Anglican Church of Canada authorized women priests, followed by U.S. Episcopalians in 1976.
Pope Paul's 1975 reply to Coggan said the gender ban honors "the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held" this fits "God's plan for his church."
That established basic points which were elaborated in a 1976 declaration from the Vatican's doctrine office and a 1994 apostolic letter from Pope John Paul II.
Before Paul's 1975 letter, Rome's Pontifical Biblical Commission reportedly voted 12-5 to advise privately, "It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way" whether to permit female priests.
The commission examined numerous Bible passages. Yes, Jesus' 12 apostles were male, it said, and there's no New Testament evidence of women serving explicit priestly functions. However, women filled leadership posts and enjoyed high status. One was even considered an "apostle" if Junio or Junias (Romans 16:7) was female.
Protestants who forbid women clergy don't usually cite Jesus' choice of male apostles but rather 1 Timothy 2:12 ("I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent"). The Pontifical Commission said this scripture perhaps referred "only to certain concrete situations and abuses," not all women anytime and everywhere.
So how many times was Jesus married?
Jesus Himself speaks of celibacy in Matthew 19:11-12: "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." Again, the emphasis is on the special nature of celibacy, one for which not all men are suited, but one that nevertheless gives glory to "the kingdom of God."
Perhaps the best evidence for the scriptural support of celibacy is that Jesus Himself practiced it!
Don't think so. Since it doesn't follow the same book of Timothy it using as justification to block women from the priesthood but ignore the qualifications it sets out for its priesthood.
Just as long as you recognize that it is indeed only your private interpretation of Scripture and not the Word of God itself.
Jesus was God, are priests in the Catholic Church?
I take that to mean you didn't read the first chapter of Peter.
Actually, relying on the passage from Timothy you've focused on, it seems that God is in favor of "organized religion," in particular, one organized with bishops. So why aren't you following God and in a church with bishops?
I think you should also read right underneath that statement:
Anglicans cannot assume Catholicism will someday drop objections to female priests and bishops, Kasper said. "The Catholic Church is convinced that she has no right to do so."
He's the head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. You can not have Christian unity if you are in disagreement with one another. Does that make sense?
Again, I would refer you to the book I mentioned above which goes into much more detail than I could here.
In any case, it should also be remembered that this is only a question of discipline and not doctrine. Our faith should not rise or fall on the matter.
Take a drive through Liberty County, Texas, northeast of Houston. The number of one-off single church denominations is astounding. Plenty of self-indulgent cats out there thanks to that renegade monk.
Is there one? If there is, I'd like to know.
It's always through people. The Church isn't a monolith, it's a collection of people.
"Our faith should not rise or fall on the matter."
Did I say it did? All I'm saying is I choose not worship at a Church who doesn't believe/practice what the Word says.
And what distinguishes the Catholic Church from a self indulgent cat? Its telling its believers to practice a discipline which isn't supported by Scripture, its telling its believers to practice something that says the opposite.
Have to disagree. I feel that it's mistreating the wound. The problem with the homosexualization and liberalization of some of the clergy won't be cured just by ending the celibacy tradition.
"It's always through people."
Guess you haven't read the gospel of John?
Foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but manifested in the last times for you.And how does this apply to our discussion?
(1 Peter 1:20)
Sorry, wrong scripture. I'm looking up the right one okay?
I thought I knew it off the top of my head, it was arrogant of me.
Try II Peter first chapter verse 20.
Rather, you are saying that you choose not to worship at a church which does not believe/practice what you think the Word says. I read the same passage and come to a different conclusion.
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.