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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381-391 next last
To: Conservative til I die

Maybe we would argue then that just maybe both the Pope and Mormon prophet are both right? And how would know they aren't? Neither can justify it Biblically.


41 posted on 07/08/2006 1:11:04 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: marajade
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.

Your confusion/frustration tells me you should read up on this to better understand the relationships/hierarchy/authority structure/history of the Eastern Churches.
42 posted on 07/08/2006 1:11:35 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
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.

That one there...again, nice point.

43 posted on 07/08/2006 1:15:00 PM PDT by AlaninSA ("Beware the fury of a patient man." - John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die

Read up on what? Like I stated in my post, why not just practice what the book of Timothy says and be done with it. Much simpler to me.


44 posted on 07/08/2006 1:16:03 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Huh? That's not what I said, and neither did Timothy.

Your first comment to this thread. Post #9So the Church cites first timothy when it comes to reason why women can't be priests but it overlooks timothy when it says that priests should be married. Okie dokie.

It seems to me that perhaps you were advocating for women in the clergy. It also seems to me that you are ridiculing the Church for not ordaining women.

Are you a woman? I think by your ID it would seem you are. It sounds feminine.

45 posted on 07/08/2006 1:18:20 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: marajade
No, they wouldn't be considered to be a priest.

According to who? You? The Pope?
46 posted on 07/08/2006 1:19:47 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: marajade
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.

The only witness the these "revelations" was Joseph Smith himself. The Mormons are not Christian, they reject the doctrine of the Trinity.

So, can we please stay on topic?

The topic was your statement that the Pope isn't "just following the word of God."

I have explained the error of your comment.

If not satisfied....The Holy Spirit will be happy to hear your complaints.
47 posted on 07/08/2006 1:19:49 PM PDT by dollars_for_dogma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die

No, according to the Book of Timothy. Have you read it? I guess you only read it when it comes to whether or not women should be priests instead of them being married.


48 posted on 07/08/2006 1:25:38 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: marajade

Dear marajade,

"What the heck does this mean?"

It means that the Catholic Church acknowledges that the practice of the faith grew up in different cultures, and took on different local customs and practices. It means that the Church doesn't believe that in non-doctrinal matters that there must be absolute uniformity between all cultures represented in the Church.

As for doing just what the "Book of Timothy" (I suppose you mean the first letter of Paul to Timothy) does, well, Paul's first letter to Timothy isn't the only book in the Bible. The fact is that St. Paul expressed a strong preference for celibacy among those who would devote themselves wholly to the service of the Lord, and Jesus, too, indicated a preference for celibacy. In fact, both St. Paul and Jesus were celibate men. Were they unworthy for the priesthood, in your view?

Thus, you see diverse practices among the different cultures and traditions that comprise the Catholic Church, and exceptions granted even where a general rule exists in a specific place.


sitetest


49 posted on 07/08/2006 1:26:19 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dollars_for_dogma

I listen intently to the holy spirit. I follow the word of God and when says that priests should be married I believe him.


50 posted on 07/08/2006 1:27:57 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: marajade
No, according to the Book of Timothy. Have you read it? I guess you only read it when it comes to whether or not women should be priests instead of them being married.

Why wouldn't you answer my question about whether or not you are a woman? I had to go on a search of your posts and find out for myself you are. Are you sure this isn't sour grapes on your part? You have never answered my questions what it says about women not being teachers in the Bible and to learn in silence and submission. Do you or do you not agree with those passages?

51 posted on 07/08/2006 1:33:45 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: marajade
I listen intently to the holy spirit. I follow the word of God and when says that priests should be married I believe him.

Fair enough...then, what about this:

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." 1Co 14:34
52 posted on 07/08/2006 1:36:55 PM PDT by dollars_for_dogma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: WestTexasWend
No big deal. Most females ignore the Catholic Church anyway (except for the minority of women who are Catholic).

Not meant as an attack on the RCs, just a non-affiliate pointing out the obvious.

53 posted on 07/08/2006 1:38:36 PM PDT by Clemenza (The CFR ate my bilderburgers! Time to call for a trilateral commission to investigate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epow
And written for a community that worshiped the Goddess Artemis--yes, a community that considered a female superior to all men. If you were trying to convince them to follow a dead Jewish guy, wouldn't you want them to abolish their idea of female superiority?

As I am sure you know, there are a lot of things in the bible that need to be evaluated by their context. The discrepancies in the gospels, for instance, are often attributed to the communities they were written in. For example, Matthew being written in a Jewish-Christian community, compared to Luke being written in a Hellenic community (with vastly different traditions and little prior understanding of Judaism) led to some glaring differences in those two gospels.
54 posted on 07/08/2006 1:39:09 PM PDT by Mazi83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dollars_for_dogma
"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." 1Co 14:34

I keep asking her that, but she won't answer. The silence is deafening.

55 posted on 07/08/2006 1:45:03 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: FJ290
"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." 1Co 14:34

I keep asking her that, but she won't answer. The silence is deafening.


And golden.
56 posted on 07/08/2006 1:48:32 PM PDT by dollars_for_dogma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die

YEah, I think I see married priests to be right around the corner. It's not doctinal, it's law (policy). So it can be changed. I'm not altogether for it, but I think it would help reverse the homosexualization of the clergy, along with other measures. And, of course, the main reason would be to get an increase in vocations.

I know there are negatives, I'm not going to go into that now.


57 posted on 07/08/2006 1:50:12 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Let us not flinch from identifying liberalism as the opposition party to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dollars_for_dogma
And golden.

LOL! Good one.

58 posted on 07/08/2006 1:53:03 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: sitetest; marajade
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.

M7y take would be that the "Church" doesn't interpret anything. The "Church" does not teach, although we say that a lot. PEOPLE interpret and teach. We simply believe in a hierarchical structure that keeps us all singing from the same page, to some extent. We don't just make it up as we go along. I think we say the "Church" because it's not just this Pope, but all the popes who establish the church's teachings. Moreover, it's not just the Pope, the Cardinals have huge input, and they, as well as all Archbishops and Bishops have significant power over their own Bishoprics.

59 posted on 07/08/2006 1:55:49 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Let us not flinch from identifying liberalism as the opposition party to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: WestTexasWend
The cardinal said women bishops should be elevated only after "overwhelming consensus" is reached with Catholicism and like-minded Eastern Orthodoxy.

Would someone please explain what is meant here? Is he saying that the Anglican church should not have women bishops until and unless the Roman Catholic church approves?

60 posted on 07/08/2006 2:01:08 PM PDT by Graymatter ("Put only Americans on guard tonight." -- George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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