The 4th Century Science of St Macrina (II)
5 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
St. John of San Francisco
Orthodox Information & Resources
Orthodox Blogs
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stories4 weeks ago
-
-
-
-
So, what is the Eucharist, really?2 months ago
Non-Orthodox Blogs
-
-
-
-
-
-
Slaughter and Slay11 hours ago
-
My View For Awhile: last leg – UPDATING12 hours ago
-
-
Where are the signs?14 hours ago
-
Politics Economics Culture & Miscellaneous Blogs
Don't blame me... I voted for George (the Third)
-
-
Terminal Trolleys: 19438 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Facial Recognition and Your Privacy3 weeks ago
Miscellaneous Sites of Interest
The Blog Yard
Where the best blogs go when they die...
Gone But Not Forgotten
-
My good people4 months ago
-
-
A Brief Return1 year ago
-
‘The Jews are beloved of God’4 years ago
-
-
Moving day6 years ago
-
Sayonara for now6 years ago
-
MY FELLOW AMERICANS7 years ago
-
A Week in Iceland! Part 18 years ago
-
Coda8 years ago
Atom / RSS
17 comments:
Actually, the women listed look like a pretty good bunch to have as ministers in whatever capacity.
There's something wrong when such capable and educated women are told they have nothing to do in the Church.
Well, I can think of at least one problem with their qualifications. They are not Roman Catholics since they reject the dogmatic teachings of that church. As for being told there is nothing for them to do in the church, I think you are making a statement that is not supported by facts. They were told no such thing. They were only told they can not be priests, which is in fact true.
If you have complaints on that score you need to address them to God. We are playing by His rules.
Under the mercy,
John
Are you sure the rules are His?
Are you sure the rules are His?
Yes. But recall that I am an Orthodox Christian, not Roman Catholic. That said the RC position is pretty much the same as ours on this point. All of the Apostolic confessions hold this to be a dogmatic truth.
The ladies who claim ordination as RC priestesses are implicitly repudiating the whole foundation of Roman Catholicism since the Pope has declared ex cathedra that it is impossible for women to be ordained. Thus they are both material and formal heretics from the RC point of view on at least two points. Fist their formal rejection of the impossibility of female ordination and secondly their implied rejection of the infallibility of the Pope of Rome.
Under the mercy,
John
The pope has not declared ex cathedra anything about this. He just declared that it goes against tradition but he did not make it ex cathedra.
( Petty detail but you really have to pay attention).
Two hundred years ago slavery was God's Will, defended by all Church leaders. Serfdom was considered God's will in Russia. It was the natural order of things decreed by God.
Anonymous,
I believe you will find that I have indeed been paying attention. I refer you to the Apostolic Letter ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS (+John Paul II) which concludes thus... (emphasis mine)
"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."
Further I refer you to the decree of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of October 28 1995 which in referring to ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS states ...
"This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
+ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect"
Please note that the man who bottom lined this decree has since changed jobs, and having declared with his predecessor's concurrence that the Roman Church's teaching on this subject is dogmatically defined, I think the matter is settled. You are of course free to disagree with that. A lot of people do. They are called Protestants.
As I said earlier, these women may be many things. But they are most assuredly not Roman Catholics.
The other matters which you cite were never universally defined dogma in either the Roman Church or the Orthodox Church, and were in fact rather controversial in both churches.
Under the mercy,
John
"You are of course free to disagree with that. A lot of people do. They are called Protestants."
That's really funny.
Thanks for bringing up material and formal heresy. I just looked it up on New Advent, and now I know about it. That said, I've always been annoyed how the scholastic tradition wields formal and material in every direction. From their metaphysical use, it is sometimes hard to see how the terms analogically apply to other considerations.
Joseph,
I tend to agree, Excessive (dare I say legalistic) parsing is kinda unnecessary. It I think sufficient to simply say that supporters of w/o are heretics. But I found myself in the rather odd position of defending the Roman Catholic position. So I presented things from their POV.
Under the mercy,
John
:For modern-day Church documents, there is no need for speculation as to which are officially ex cathedra, because the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can be consulted directly on this question. For example, after Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) was released in 1994, a few commentators speculated that this might be an exercise of papal infallibility (for an example, see [2]). In response to this confusion, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has unambiguously stated, on at least three separate occasions [3] [4] [5], that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an ex cathedra teaching, saying that the content of this letter has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium."
From wikipedia on papal infallibility.
"The ladies who claim ordination as RC priestesses are implicitly repudiating the whole foundation of Roman Catholicism since the Pope has declared ex cathedra that it is impossible for women to be ordained. Thus they are both material and formal heretics from the RC point of view on at least two points. Fist their formal rejection of the impossibility of female ordination and secondly their implied rejection of the infallibility of the Pope of Rome."
Your quote.
Perhaps you need to rethink your argument.
For another take on the subject;
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2281
Ypu'll see from the article that the suject is not closed.
lookit what trouble linking to me gets you. ;-P
Anonymous,
First, it would appear upon careful reading that you are correct that ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS does not in fact constitute an ex-cathedra pronouncement. As the three documents cited point out, such would be redundant since the reservation of Holy Orders is already taught by the infallible Magesterium of the church and must be accepted as part of the Deposit of the Faith. The concluding paragraph which I cited however reiterates that this teaching is binding on all Catholics as do all three of the documents you oddly chose to reference. Granting your point, I fail to see how this advances your argument for women’s ordination since it is clearly and, if possible, even more forcefully condemned by the infallible Magesterium.
As for the article you referred me to; citing a work published in a magazine which is rather akin to the National Catholic Reporter in its demonstrated sympathy for almost every half baked heretical notion of theological revisionists is not a good starting point in any rebuttal to a definitive declaration by multiple Popes, the CDF and the consensus patrum. After reading the article in question, my suspicions were confirmed. The only thing this article did was to state that there are people who disagree with the Pope and the CDF. It did not in any way refute the fact that as far as Rome is concerned the matter is settled. In fact it pretty much skirted the question. Seriously, if you are going to stand up and declare that all of the apostolic churches are wrong, that the consensus patrum was wrong, that all of the popes and the CDF are and have been wrong, you really should at least come armed with more than this silly nonsense. This boils down to "the Pope is wrong... because I think he is wrong." I am no ultramontanist but if you’re going to call yourself Roman Catholic (with any credibility) it would seem to me that at some point you need to show a little bit of respect when the Pope and the church declare a subject is closed.
Fr. John Whiteford (ROCOR) has an expression which is I think, a pretty good dictum for Orthodoxy.
"If it's old, it's not necessarily gold. But if it’s new, it's definitely not true."
Whenever someone comes up and announces that they have just discovered something that all of the saints and Fathers of the Church and OEcumenical Councils never discerned or just plain got wrong, then you know you are heading down the same well worn path followed by every heretical group that has cropped up over the many centuries.
I am sorry but you have not posted a single item which refutes the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has and continues to definitively teach as an infallible and irreformable doctrine that it is not possible for women to be ordained to Holy Orders. But I do give you props on your correcting my admittedly mistaken understanding that ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS was an ex-cathedra declaration. (Though I rather think it was a good example of what is called a pyrrhic victory in that the documents you cite are even more damning to your cause than ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS by itself.)
In ICXC
John
P.S. Can someone please explain to me how a nice Orthodox boy got caught up in a prolonged defense of Roman Catholic dogma? Paging Dr. Mike Liccione…
As a followup to my previous post, and in an effort to prevent this from going on endlessly, I would ask that any posters who wish to assert that the impossibility of female ordination is not a definitive doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church please cite some source that is equal to, or superior in authority to the Pope and the CDF both of which have said the matter is closed. Otherwise we are just going to be back to silly articles by heterodox theologians published in Commonweal / NPR and and other publications of a similar ilk.
As I said before, anyone is free to disagree with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church on matters of doctrine. I do frequently. Just please don't call yourself Catholic while doing so. It's frankly dishonest.
Under the mercy,
John (a non-Roman Catholic)
I never wrote I was Catholic.
Whether you like it or not, it's still a matter of debate in all the Churches.
You may think it's settled but others don't. Calling those exploring the issue names doesn't resolve it.
You have your opinion, I have mine.
The Church always moves slowly and imperceptibly. It's not up to us to decide when it should move slower or faster or move at all.
Anonymous,
You may not call yourself a Catholic (I note you have not revealed your religious affiliation) but the ladies whom you have been defending DO call themselves Catholic. I stand by my statement that such is dishonest given their obvious rejection of Roman Catholic dogma.
As for a debate in "all the Churches," I only recognize one Church. What goes on outside of it does not concern me. The affairs of other religious confessions are their own business.
Regarding your claims of how the church (we are back to singular again) works, I suspect we would not even agree on the definition of The Church.
Yours in ICXC
John
Alica Linsley at Just Genesis (link available on this site) has some very good explanations why ordination of women is wrong. There are many opportunities for women to be active in the church without being ordained.
--Angela
Perhaps you should investigate the writings of at Elizabeth Behr-Sigel.
Also you should look at;
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
for a good perspective of what your blog represents.
Anonymous,
If you don't like the Roman Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church that's fine. Seriously. I am not going to loose sleep over it. Join the Unitarians or the Episcopalians (same thing IMO) or whatever floats your boat. But if your going to go around telling other people what their church should, or should not be doing, then your going to get called out for it. Ditto if you choose to lend your anonymous support to persons, masquerading as something which they are not in an effort to subvert the teachings of a given church.
If you don't like my blog that's fine too. I am not chaining you to it. No one is forcing you to read my commentary. But if your going to attack me (Lord knows I have my share of issues for which I could be fairly criticized), at least try to be honest in representing my views.
You reference me to some leftist clap trap about the authoritarianism in the United States and say this is what my blog represents. Which leads me to conclude that you clearly have not been paying much attention to this blog for any length of time. If you had you would know that I loath and detest the morons who were running this country for the last eight years. Just as a single article I would refer you to my post from October 21, 2006 "Why I am not voting this year."
http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-i-am-not-voting.html
As for the author you refer me to, I have actually stumbled across her before. Madam Behr-Sigel was a well known theologian and liked by theological revisionists and others of a similar bent. Of the essays I have read most are at least (more or less) an accurate reflection of the history of women in the Orthodox Church. Though some seem to be agenda driven. She correctly points out (as I have on various occasions) that women have had very influential roles in Church history. At least one OEcumenical Council was convoked by a woman.
But she strays, when like so many other modernists she clearly believes that she has found something new. She has discovered the REAL TRUTH and the Church and the consensus patrum were of course all wrong on the subject of woman's ordination.
I believe I have already expressed my views of those who suddenly uncover doctrinal error that no one else grasped for 2000 years.
"If it's old, it may or may not be gold. But if it's new, it is definitely NOT true."
That said there is no real agitation for women's ordination in Orthodoxy. This is not to say there is none at all. But where it exists, it is a fringe opinion and one that is generally (and rightly) dismissed out of hand. Advocates are politely pointed to the Episcopal Church.
In closing I think that this discussion has gone around and around long enough, especially given that you continue to hide both your name and religious affiliation (something which I do not encourage if you have read my guidelines for comments). Nothing substantive has been added to this discussion for quite a few posts. If there is something substantive to add by all means do so. But I really don't see this going anywhere. And to be honest I really have no interest in debating Protestant doctrinal revisionism.
I am not going to close the comments but I am going to insist that any further posts on this topic be signed with at least a first name and the religious affiliation of the poster.
Under the mercy,
John
Post a Comment