Vatican opposes female clergy anywhere, gives reasons from Bible

Associated Press ^ | Saturday, July 8, 2006 | Richard N. Ostling

[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.

[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?

OK.

My personal interpretation of your post is not correct, is it?

The reason I said that is to show that you are the authority for the meaning of your post: not what I determined it to be.

The same goes for the Bible.

Without an authority, the meaning of each verse--each word-- comes under personal interpretation, i.e., conflict and confusion.

[marajade]

"No, it's your made-up church."

Explain the conflict in scripture in my post #9. Thanks.

[marajade]

God's word is the authority, not the Pope.

[flaglady47]

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

Haven't you beaten your dead horse argument into the ground by now? Aren't you tired of repeating the same old tired lines over and over and over, ad nauseum. I'll bet a lot of people on this thread are tired of the constant repetition of the same old saw that no one really wants to hear from you anymore. Your argument is pointless, you choose the biblical passages you want to quote that you allege support your argument, and ignore others. The Church of Marajade, the church of one. Don't you think it's about time to just hang it up and go have dinner with your agreeable husband? You can quote Timothy to one another over the pot roast.

[FJ290]

What scripture from Corinthians

The one he and I gave you earlier:

Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. 1 Cor.14:34

[marajade]

what scriptures am I ignoring? And if its a deadhorse, why are you still replying to me in this thread?

[marajade]

What the scripture in Corintians in ref to Timothy? FR ain't the Church.

[dollars_for_dogma]

God's word is the authority, not the Pope.

You're missing the entire point of me adding a personal interpretation to your post....

You do see the confusion that personal interpretation causes?

And are you or are you not the authority as to the meaning of your posted words?

[FJ290]

I'll bet a lot of people on this thread are tired of the constant repetition of the same old saw that no one really wants to hear from you anymore.

I'm getting tired of her never answering a question posed to her and I'm patient man.

[marajade]

Why don't you paint me a picture?

[flaglady47]

"And if its a deadhorse, why are you still replying to me in this thread?"

As of this moment, I won't be anymore because you now bore me with your incessant chattering about nothing of value. Plus, I'm hungry. So, I'll go make my own pot roast, but no Timothy talk will be allowed at the table. I'll check back on this thread in about an hour just to see if you are still at it and if anyone is bothering to engage with you at that point. Can't imagine why they would want to, unless they are new to the thread and thus unsuspecting as to your word games. If you are still on an hour from now, I'll know you are more off the beam than I already think you are. But maybe, like the Timothy passage, you will blessedly fall silent.

[FJ290]

What the scripture in Corintians in ref to Timothy? FR ain't the Church.

Okay, this is beginning to look like you are making a Freudian slip with calling FR the Church all the time, LOL.

Perhaps you're getting tired, but I'm not posting the Scripture up there anymore. The verses have been given to you, you refuse to answer, but you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

People often use obfuscation and avoidance so that they can take control of the debate. This debate isn't about what all Marajade thinks about the Catholic Church. We aren't here to hear you pontificate from your computer about us and allow you to never respond to questions posed to you. Debate /discussions are a two way street.

[FJ290]

What the scripture in Corintians in ref to Timothy? FR ain't the Church.

Okay, this is beginning to look like you are making a Freudian slip with calling FR the Church all the time, LOL.

Perhaps you're getting tired, but I'm not posting the Scripture up there anymore. The verses have been given to you, you refuse to answer, but you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

People often use obfuscation and avoidance so that they can take control of the debate. This debate isn't about what all Marajade thinks about the Catholic Church. We aren't here to hear you pontificate from your computer about us and allow you to never respond to questions posed to you. Debate /discussions are a two way street.

[FJ290]

Why don't you paint me a picture?

I think at this point I would rather pull my toenails out with a pair of pliers. I am going to take flaglady47's own good advice and go eat a steak with my lovely wife who has returned home from an outing with her sister. I've been waiting for her return before I fire up the grill. Adios and I'll check back on the thread later if possible.

[markomalley]

Why not just believe what the Book of Timothy says and be done with all of it. Wouldn't it just be a whole lot simpler?

It would be a lot simpler if you just believed the Letter of St. Paul to Timothy. But that's besides the point, I guess.

[markomalley]

Bishops/Priests whatever you prefer. Its a fault of Catholic Church they used the Roman Gov't as a guide to support the heirarcy they have.

Perhaps one could say that the rejection of those three orders of clergy are a rejection of Biblical principle, as well. (Since the Bible is, after all, the origin of the Christian orders)

[NYer]

Not only did Our Lord live like a monk, or to be more exact like a Friar, but, as Luke points out, as he was writing there were already those who lived celibate lives in imitation of Our Lord. Of course there is also the example of St. John, whose life and our Lord paralleled, and then of course the life of St. Paul followed much the same course.

Here is the story of a saint who led an exemplary life and who is most cherished in the East.

---

   The Story of Charbel
 

On May 8, 1828 in a mountain village of Beka'kafra, the highest village in the near-east, Charbel was born to a poor Maronite family. From childhood his life revealed a calling to "bear fruit as a noble Cedar of Lebanon". Charbel "grew in age and wisdom before God and men". At 23 years old he entered the monastery of
Our Lady of Mayfouk (north of Byblos) where he became a novice. After two years of novitiate, in 1853, he was sent to St. Maron monastery where he pronounced the monastic vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Charbel was then transferred to the monastery of Kfeifan where he studied philosophy and theology. His
ordination to the priesthood took place in 1859, after which he was sent back to St. Maron monastery. His teachers provided him with good education and nurtured within him a deep love for monastic life.

During his 19 years at St. Maron monastery, Charbel performed his priestly ministry and his monastic duties in an edifying way. He totally dedicated himself to Christ with undivided heart to live in silence before Nameless One. In 1875 Charbel was granted permission to live as a hermit nearby the monastery at St. Peter and Paul hermitage. His 23 years of solitary life were lived in a spirit of total abandonment to God.

Charbel's companions in the hermitage were the Sons of God, as encountered in the Scriptures and in the Eucharist, and the Blessed Mother. The Eucharist became the center of his life. He consumed the Bread of his Life and was consumed by it. Though this hermit did not have a place in the world, the world had a great place in his heart. Through prayer and penance he offered himself as a sacrifice so that the world would return to God. It is in this light that one sees the importance of the following Eucharistic prayer in his life:

CHARBEL PRAYER

Father of Truth

(The Last Prayer of Saint Charbel before he died)

 

Father of truth,

Here is your Son,

The sacrifice in which you are well pleased.

Accept him for he died for me.

So through him I shall be pardoned.

Here is the offering.

Take it from my hands

And so I shall be reconciled with you.

Remember not the sins that I have committed

In front of your Majesty.

Here is the blood which flowered on Golgotha

For my salvation and prays for me.

Out of consideration for this,

Accept my supplication.

I have committed many sins

But your mercy is great.

If you put them in the balance,

Your goodness will have more weight

Than the most mighty mountains.

Look not upon my sins,

But rather on what is offered for them,

For the offering and the sacrifice

Are even greater than the offences.

Because I have sinned,

Your beloved bore the nails and the spear.

His sufferings are enough to satisfy you.

By them I shall live.

Glory be to the Father who sent His Son for us.

Adoration be to the Son who has freed us and ensured our salvation.

Blessed be he who by his love has given life to all.

To him be the glory.

 

from the Maronite Liturgy.

[NYer]

But its not Biblically based.

Christ Himself preached it! How much more biblical than that can you get?

[NYer]

Its not my Church, its Christ's Church.

AUTHORITY - Should the Bible be the final authority of Christianity or the Church?   Well, Christ stated that the Church, NOT Scripture should be the final authority:   "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17)  Christ did NOT state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction.  He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity.  In addition, St. Paul states that the Church, NOT Scripture is "THE pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)  Since the Church alone is mentioned as THE pillar of truth, then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture.   For if individuals could correctly interpret Scripture, then all interpretations would be EXACTLY THE SAME as there can only be ONE spiritual truth for the plural of the word "truth" NEVER appears in Scripture.  The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has no spot, wrinkle or blemish (Ephesians 5:27).  Christ also stated that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error?  Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both weeds and wheat (Matthew 13:30).

ORGANIZATION - Is the Church to be a loose conglomerate of believers or is it to be organized and structured?  Scripture CLEARLY established "offices" and a "hierarchy" among Christians.  The offices of "bishop, priest (presbyter) and deacon" are mentioned in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1,8; Titus 1:7).   What else is this but "organization?"  Or should we believe that any believer can "claim" to be a bishop, priest, deacon or even "apostle?"   The word "office" is specifically used in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1) to describe these positions.  Webster defines "office" as "A special duty, trust, charge, or position, conferred by authority or God and for a public purpose; a position of trust or authority."  And the office of "apostle" is to be continued (Acts 1:20-26) to the present day.  Not all believers are "equal" nor have the same gifts (1 Corinthians 12:8-10; Ephesians 4:11).   Is the Church a "visible, earthly" entity?  Yes, for Christ would not direct us to the Church for disputes if it were not here on Earth (Matthew 18:17).   Nor would "fear" encompass the whole Church if it were a mystical, invisible and heavenly entity (Acts 5:11).  The Church is definitely here on earth for the actions described in Acts definitely take place on earth and the term used is "the whole Church" (Acts 15:22).

HEAD OF THE CHURCH - Is there to be a visible "head" of the Church here on earth?  Well, as I established under the heading of "Organization," not all believers are to have the same authority or equality within the Church.  Did the Apostles have the EXACT SAME authority amongst themselves.  NO, they did not.   For it was St. Peter alone that was the "rock" upon which Christ established His Church (Matthew 16:18).  And it was St. Peter alone that was given the task of "feeding" Christ's sheep (John 21:15-17).   Scripture clearly points out St. Peter as Christ's representative on earth.  Christ did not ask the other Eleven to feed and tend His sheep.  If you read The Acts Of The Apostles, it is clear that St. Peter leads the Apostles.  Therefore, since the Apostles are to be replaced as they die (Acts 1:20-26), then it follows that whoever succeed(s) St. Peter is leader of the Church.  There is only to be one shepherd of the Church (John 10:16).  For the Apostles did not argue amongst themselves whether there was a "greatest" at all, but who amongst them was THE greatest (Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46).

ONE CHURCH - Is there to be only one Church or many?  According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23).  We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5).  There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many.  For the Church is Christ's Body and Christ only had one Body, not many.  Also, since the Church is Christ's Bride (Ephesians 5:29), can Christ be married to more than one wife (the sin of polygamy)?  NO, Christ can only have one wife (i.e., one Church, not many).

In conclusion, Scripture is pretty straightforward about the Church's role in salvation, Its authority and Its organization.  It's all a matter of deductive reasoning, correct interpretation and pure logic.

SOURCE

[marajade]

"In conclusion, Scripture is pretty straightforward about the Church's role in salvation, Its authority and Its organization. It's all a matter of deductive reasoning, correct interpretation and pure logic."

No faith?