Posted on 04/07/2009 6:42:40 PM PDT by Huber
Remember also that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all affirmed positively the perpetual virginity of Mary. This carping and cavilling is a relatively new development.
In journalism the absolute defense against libel (slander in written form) is truth...I have not called Pius XII anything that could be stretched to your elevating our discourse to anything that could even resemble "slander" ... I have offered, at least what I consider to be, a fair and truthful assessment done on Pius XII by the American Jewish council--believe me, there are far more critical histories available about his papacy but I think you know that.
I've done a thorough review of the history and its sources, and you are simply wrong here.
Why rely on a third-hand article with no primary sources and conclude that it's "fair and truthful" -- on what basis? The primary sources and contemporary references directly refute the article.
Surely you understand the danger of hearsay assertions? It's a violation of historical method.
Episcopal Churches by canons and bylaws charge the Vestry with all monetary functions of the parish.
Only the discretionary fund is available to clergy, and for most parishes that is controlled by annual audit.
And you still have given not one single primary or contemporary source (the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't qualify, especially if it's one of the post-Micro/Macropedia editions. And some of your facts (not opinions, humble or otherwise) are wrong, but that's not surprising given your sources.)
All the primary sources make it abundantly clear that Pius XII repeatedly denounced Nazis and Nazism, while he was Nuncio, while he was Cardinal-Secretary of State and while he was Pope. Yet you continue to repeat the same old lies that you've gleaned from unreliable hearsay sources.
Truth is not an absolute defense when your "truth" is based on hearsay and gossip that you haven't bothered to verify. The Episcopalian catechism warns you to "keep [your] tongue from evil speaking, lying, and slandering." Since you obviously have no real interest in becoming Catholic . . . .
Roman Catholicism appeals to me primarily because of responses in dealing with apostate crisis (gay pedophiles as priests, etc.; which Episcopalians now seem to embrace as well as other apostasies) and the fact that historically there would be no Christianity without the "Mother" Church. What turns me off are RCs who are seemingly blind to well-documented historic facts as well as Scriptural record (I've had some defend the Inquisition, every abuse, every pope). On Scriptural record, if you can show me any of the Canonical account of the Blessed Virgin being bodily assumed into heaven in either the Catholic Bible--the one with the Apocrapha--or the standard KIng James version I use, I will believe you, BTW, as a father of daughters, I do find it strange that while Mary is so venerated some RC Dioceses here in America won't even allow girls to serve at the altar let alone the greater Church ever considering women fit for the priesthood. Interesting, isn't it, that some of history's greatest monarch Elizabeth I, Catherine of Russia,Isabella of Spain; and the in Christendom, St. Joan of Arc, were women? Then, again, I suppose you will defend your Church on this fact as well with some sort of something about convents and nuns being "leaders?")
About eight or so years ago, I became very interested in Christianity's founding and decided to study Judaism here with a Rabbi-led course. I really found it fascinating that Jews, for the most part, don't really have a problem with Jesus nor with St. Peter the founder of "Our" Church. They do, however (at least the ones I came across, have a big problem with a former zealous Pharisee later known to us as St. Paul and some features of mainline Christianity (primarily Roman Catholicism and the EUSA, but not so much as the more protestant Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists) stressing the black or white of religion rather than the shades of gray, particularly where there is no sound Scriptural documentation in either the Old or New Testaments.
I didn't and don't mean to offend you in any way and I am sorry that you might take it that way. But I cannot agree that Pius XII was in any way a "saint" as some RCs are not pushing for...he IS no doubt a better Christian than me though in all retrospect for I can confess to you that my sins are great indeed!
I was thinking he is either unsexual (narcissists often are: sex is messy) or pays for sexual favours of a varied nature.
It's hard to tell about this guy without ever having observed him in his 'natural habitat'. But the narcissism is a big part of the homosexual lifestyle. They are terrified of growing old. Nothing is more pathetic than an old queen frantically trying to disguise the advancing years. I've seen a lot of them because my mom is a professional dancer.
But to be serious for a moment, let's take up the issue that really seems to bug modern Americans, who feel that everything should be available to everybody, regardless of qualifications.
The prohibition against women serving at the altar has nothing to do with the important role of women in the Church - consider St. Teresa of Avila, who did not hesitate to chastise the Pope when she felt he was getting out of line . . . . ! It's just that the roles of men and of women are different (imagine that!)
Because the center of the Mass is the re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice, the priest is "alter Christus" - another Christ. He stands in the shoes of Our Lord and through His power presides at the miraculous transformation of bread and wine to the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. The priest is also, as was Christ, the Bridegroom, and his spouse is the Church.
In a church where the center of worship is the preaching (most Protestant churches, including 'low' Episcopalian), it doesn't matter so much, but where the priest is the representative of Christ and the Bridegroom, it matters a lot. A woman in that position is assuming a role that ontologically and theologically she simply cannot fill, any more than a man can marry a man or a woman a woman. They can go through the motions, of course, but it isn't "real".
And while it is discretionary in the Church whether girls are allowed to serve at the altar, since the position of altar server is a step towards the priesthood (it used to be one of the Minor Orders) some priests feel it is unfair and a kind of false pretense to let girls take that step when they can't go on. Some priests allow girls to serve but differentiate their vestments to make the distinction clear, that they can become a religious but not a priest -- one parish with a member here on FR puts the boys in cassocks and the girls in nuns' habits (they look absolutely adorable).
When I was an Episcopalian, my home parish was the training parish for the diocese, and every new ordinand was required to serve there for six months to a year, sort of a shake down cruise if you will. So I saw every ordinand in the Diocese of Atlanta for 28 years.
With one exception (I guess there's always one - she is a very nice lady, very politically liberal but not crazy, she now has a parish of her own), the women were simply not fit for the priesthood, in one way or another. Many of them were ordained not because they had a 'call' but because they wanted to make a political point (this was made amply clear in their preaching). Some were trying to escape their private demons (in much the same way that some remarkably unbalanced people become psychiatrists). A couple were frank practicing lesbians who wanted to 'shock the Church into common sense' - at least they fired the one who brought her live-in lover to services, although they might not fire her now!
After a lot of reflection, I concluded that the unfitness of the overwhelming majority of these women stemmed from their trying to force themselves into a role that they were not able to take. Given that the parish was very 'high' in ritual (although the theology slipped steadily once the old rector retired and the products of the radicalized seminaries started coming in), I think that threw the problem into high relief.
So you see, it's not just those 'mean old men oppressing women'. There's a real theological reason for it, and it has consequences when you try to flout the theology.
As for seeking a Biblical argument for the Assumption of Mary . . . the problem with that of course is the usual problem with Sola Scriptura. Tradition compiled what we call the Bible; tradition also preserved many other accounts of the early Church, including praxis and history (as opposed to Scripture per se). But if we rely on the Bible as our sole historical source, we lose much that is of great value, but more importantly we lose the authority that verifies the Bible itself. The Bible is not self-authenticating.
. . . but, really, Catherine the Great . . . !!!???!!!
Most of them booted out? Unfortunately not.
I have no problem with a priest who is gay as long as they behave themselves.
If they’re booted out they end up on welfare. What is a 55 year old former priest to do for a living.
That's what one of ours did.
We must have had a pretty clean sweep in Atlanta in the 80s when they caught the two worst offenders and imprisoned them, because we have a certain number of Father Strum-a-Tune liberals, but the obvious homosexuals are g-o-n-e.
If a priest is gay and behaves himself, nobody knows about it. At least so long as he behaves himself.
Bizarre sexual proclivities but "Great" none the less if you would study her reign over Russia.
I had a lot of reservations about a "priestess" officiating in my local parish but, after attending services, found her sermons always inspiring, her knowledge of Canonical Scripture sound, her compassion deep and her outreach ministry to places such as a local abused women's shelter and a cheap convalescent home where poor old people go to die something truly magnificent. Interesting is the fact that she is a former RC (her husband is a current one, so doesn't come to our church.)
As well, there are nuns in the Episcopal convents who are truly Godly in every fashion--incidentally, there is an Episcopal convent there in Georgia (Augusta). As with RCs they can have been married (widowed) but have to be single. (Monks in the EUSA take a vow of celibacy.)
I'm also aware that there are notorious apostate minsters in the Episcopal Church who are women (the Rev. Katherine Ragsdale being one) as well as bishops I find particularly personally despicable (Rt. Revs. Vikie Gene Robinson, John Shelby Sprong especially come to mind as the late Most Rev. Pike).
But, getting back to Pope Pius XII I suppose I'll just have to use an analogy of presidential comparison. There are many here on FR who are convinced that George W. Bush deserves a place on Mt. Rushmore, I'm not one of them. I also believe that a current resident of your state and former president (Carter) was one of the worst in our history. I served in the U.S. Navy submarine service, and being a small service, there were some naval officers who had known him--they described him as someone they would "never want to go to sea with again!" So, while you and I can perhaps agree that JPII was great, we'll again just have to disagree on Piux XXII.
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.