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.
In practical reality, what's the real difference between the two?
Isn't that what both the Pope and the prophet of the Mormon Church both believed?
Hmm... I would respectfully disagree with that.
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it. St. Matthew 9:12
St. Paul also said that he wished all men were like himself, celibate: 1 Cor.7:7-8
I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
Same chapter he says this in verses 32-33>
I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
But the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife
The Vatican also has an article "The Biblical Foundation of Celibacy:
Dear marajade,
Here is how the New American Bible puts it:
"Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once,..." 1 Tim 3:2
Now, there's nothing here that says the bishop must have been married at least once. However, one might make that interpretation, except that elsewhere St. Paul strongly encourages the vow of celibacy. As well, Jesus Himself encourages making oneself a "eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom." Matt 19:12
"I believe the book of Timothy states..."
That's interesting, what you believe. For us Catholics, we believe that it is the Church, who received her authority from the Apostles, and thus from Jesus Himself, who has the authority to definitively interpret Scripture.
I can see how you come to your interpretation. My intellect prefers the teaching of the Church as seemingly better fitting all the scriptures involved.
However, the conclusions of my own intellect aside, by an act of will, I assent to the teaching and discipline of the Catholic Church, and submit my intellect to her, as it is within the Church of Christ that the authority to teach resides.
sitetest
"For us Catholics, we believe that it is the Church, who received her authority from the Apostles, and thus from Jesus Himself, who has the authority to definitively interpret Scripture."
So tell me, how many Catholic priests in your church have been married once?
So I guess when the prophet of the Mormon Church received revelation from God because he too as a leader is infallible it was okay for them to practice polygamy.
" ... but not mandated."
Except for its priesthood.
Dear marajade,
I believe that in the United States, about 200 Catholic priests of the Latin Rite have been married once. In the Eastern Catholic Churches, I don't know how many priests are married, but except in the United States, they may generally marry prior to ordination. In the United States, recent changes of discipline now permit marriage before ordination in the Eastern Catholic Churches, as well, although I think the understanding is that it must be with the blessing of the bishop.
I've pinged a few folks who are Eastern Catholics (they are just as much Catholic as folks who go to the local Roman Catholic Church). They may wish to elaborate.
sitetest
Actually it says Bishops if you want to get technical.
Let's turn your argument around on you though. Logically, how can a woman be the husband of one wife?
What do you do with the passages from Scripture that disallow women to teach in church, learn in silence and submission? What do you do with the fact that Jesus never chose a woman as an Apostle, nor did the Apostles ever ordain women.
"In the United States, recent changes of discipline now permit marriage before ordination in the Eastern Catholic Churches, as well ..."
What the heck does this mean? We've got all these different rites and latin and eastern whatevers that are taking different stances on the issue.
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?
Changing the laws of nature and God is abominable. Using the Lord's Love to make political statements undermines the Christian Church.
Lots of stuff women can do to further Christ's mission.
Nice post...well put.
...and I don't normally throw out the compliments.
"Actually it says Bishops if you want to get technical."
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.
"Logically, how can a woman be the husband of one wife?"
Huh? That's not what I said, and neither did Timothy.
No, they wouldn't be considered to be a priest.
Thanks, which one, LOL!
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.