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.
All the opinions you have expressed concerning Scripture are personal.
If you claim you read the Bible and understand what it means, pray tell, why can't you elaborate or admit to accepting the passages I gave you or not? Instead, it appears you hem and haw, and beat around the bush about answering directly.
Maybe you need a woman to teach you in formal setting. Since its seems you don't understand. Even though it may be against Biblical practices.
I don't need anyone to teach me thank you very much what I need is a straight answer for you. I am going to simplify it this time.
The subject of this thread: "Vatican opposes female clergy anywhere, gives reasons from Bible."
Do you oppose female clergy? Yes or no?
what I need is a straight answer for you.
Strike that. "what I need is a straight answer FROM you."
Yes I oppose it. I also oppose celibate clergy since it too is against Biblical standards, in fact in the book of timothy, forbidding a leader/bishop of the church is evil.
oops forbidding a bishop to marry
But Marajade, it does NOT say forbidding a Bishop to marry.
Let's look at it in context:
Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the LAST TIMES some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,
Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared,
Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.
Where did he say Bishop? Where did he say priest?
Scholars say St. Paul was speaking about certain sects which were Gnostic and they also had a disdain for the material world and for the material body. They were also strict vegetarians.
Entire book of Timothy is about the qualifications set for Bishops. Context, context, context.
Speaking of getting things into context, please explain something to me.
Why do you say in post #608, subject "Brokeback Mountain Gets 8 Oscar Nominations":
Why can't homosexuals be conservatives? I'm pro abortion myself and would still consider myself to be conservative.
Pro abortion? Homosexual conservatives? Do you agree with the commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill?" How can you be pro-abortion and take that Holy Commandment literally?
In same subject title, post #562, you appear to be in favor of this revolting film. Do you not agree with "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22
In yet another thread, "Here comes the Mother to Be" in post # 60 you commend a woman on that thread for posing nude while pregnant. Do you not agree with these passages from Scripture on modesty?
For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, whatsoever lovely, whatsoever of good fame, if there be any virtue, if any praise of discipline, think on these things. Philippians 4:8
But the wisdom, that is from above, first indeed is chaste, then peaceable, modest, easy to be persuaded, consenting to the good, full of mercy and good fruits, without judging, without dissimulation. St. James 3:17
Take SPECIAL note of this one, Marajade:
In like manner women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire 1 Timothy 2:9
So.. you were saying WHAT about the Catholic Church not following Scripture again?
I've never had an abortion and I've never appeared nude. What's your problem?
My problem is that you said you are pro-abortion and that is unbiblical. My problem is that you applauded a woman you were talking with on that thread for posing nude and that is unbiblical, not to mention how enthusiastic you were over Brokeback Mountain=(abomination)
Would Jesus support any of that?
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.