Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vatican opposes female clergy anywhere, gives reasons from Bible
Associated Press ^ | Saturday, July 8, 2006 | Richard N. Ostling

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.


TOPICS: Catholic; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: anglican; catholic; ecusa; episcopal; femaleclergy; heresy; jeffertsschori; ordination; womenpriests
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 381-391 next last
To: marajade
What?

"My husband agrees with me completely on what the Book of Timothy says.

....or he can just get his **s out!"


It's my personal interpretation of what you were saying.
221 posted on 07/08/2006 5:15:17 PM PDT by dollars_for_dogma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

What am I missing?


222 posted on 07/08/2006 5:15:22 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: dollars_for_dogma

"It's my personal interpretation of what you were saying."

Fine, let's get back to the thread shall we? What does the Book of Timothy say?


223 posted on 07/08/2006 5:16:50 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: marajade
What am I missing?

Stop the game playing. 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

Geez, I hate it when people do this but here goes:

Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.

Clear enough for you now?

224 posted on 07/08/2006 5:20:45 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: marajade

"I'm just a plain old bible believer."

Well, then you are the priest of your own private church, as you are interpreting for yourself, with no input from any organized religion, what the meaning of biblical passages are. So, you have set yourself up as your own private church, a church of one (two, if you include your husband), where you are Pope, Bishop, priest, layman(woman), and parishioner, all at the same time, preaching to yourself what you do or do not want to believe, and interpreting the Bible as you choose, at whim, from day to day. Interesting concept. The Church of Marajade. No parishioners welcome, a UniChurch. Those 20,000 plus Protestant churches just increased by one, the Private Church of One.


225 posted on 07/08/2006 5:22:24 PM PDT by flaglady47
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

Well FR is the Church. And I'm speaking. Too bad.


226 posted on 07/08/2006 5:22:28 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: flaglady47

I guess you missed the part where I quoted scripture in the Book of Peter?


227 posted on 07/08/2006 5:23:15 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: flaglady47

I feel like John the Baptist. Someone crying out in the desert. Its not my Church, its Christ's Church.


228 posted on 07/08/2006 5:24:38 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Well FR is the Church. And I'm speaking. Too bad.

Hey, I never said you couldn't speak on FR. I am talking about the structure of the Church and the Bible says you can't be in the clergy, so too bad!

229 posted on 07/08/2006 5:25:04 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: marajade

Oops I meant that FR isn't the Catholic Church.


230 posted on 07/08/2006 5:25:22 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: marajade
I feel like John the Baptist. Someone crying out in the desert. Its not my Church, its Christ's Church.

Modest too.

231 posted on 07/08/2006 5:26:06 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

"I am talking about the structure of the Church and the Bible says you can't be in the clergy, so too bad!"

Yeah its too bad you believe and belong in an organized religion that doesn't practice what the Bible says.


232 posted on 07/08/2006 5:26:58 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Yeah its too bad you believe and belong in an organized religion that doesn't practice what the Bible says.

If you want to insult me and the Church, fine, but you have shown your true feminist colors by refusing to answer the question posed to you about 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and the one that Dogma for dollars posed to you from Corinthians. It's so transparent that you want women to be in the clergy. It's clear as glass to me.

233 posted on 07/08/2006 5:30:53 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: ahadams2; secret garden; MountainMenace; SICSEMPERTYRANNUS; kaibabbob; angeliquemb9; ...
Thanks to NYer for the ping.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
More Anglican articles here.

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

234 posted on 07/08/2006 5:32:50 PM PDT by sionnsar (†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† | Iran Azadi | SONY: 5yst3m 0wn3d, N0t Y0urs | NYT:Jihadi Journal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

All I want is to go to Christ's Church where the Bible and what it says is believed and practiced?

What scripture from Corinthians and you're supposed by forum rules ping another poster if you quote them.


235 posted on 07/08/2006 5:33:03 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: All

Ooops! That should have been dollars_for_dogma! Sorry.


236 posted on 07/08/2006 5:33:12 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: marajade

"Its not my Church, its Christ's Church."

No, it's your made-up church.


237 posted on 07/08/2006 5:33:52 PM PDT by flaglady47
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: dollars_for_dogma

ping


238 posted on 07/08/2006 5:33:58 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: flaglady47

You're right its not. Its Christ's Church. Romans 16:16.


239 posted on 07/08/2006 5:34:38 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: marajade
What scripture from Corinthians and you're supposed by forum rules ping another poster if you quote them.

Please show me that from the Forum rules because I don't see it:

Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience. Free Republic is a noncommerical site. Please do not post advertising, solicitations, spam or any other commercial messages. Do not spam us with links to your own site. No one likes spam.

240 posted on 07/08/2006 5:35:15 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 381-391 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson