Catholic ping!
The Apostle Paul was not just casually mentioning his personal disapproval of women as pastors when he wrote that into holy scripture, he was instructing Timothy under divine inspiration on how God intends for his church leaders and overseers (pastors, bishops, etc) to organize and operate local church congregations.
That portion of scripture is primarily why we Baptists do not ordain women as pastors, and I would think that it is also a large part of the reason why the Catholic Church does not ordain women to the priesthood or the higher ranks of clergy. I hope that both churches stick to their biblical principles and do not cave in to feminist activism concerning this matter.
So 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.
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."
***
Hallelujah!
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.
Not meant as an attack on the RCs, just a non-affiliate pointing out the obvious.
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?
Hence, the question of the priesthood in its relation to sexuality - a question usually posed more simply as "Why can there not be women priests?" - has now been answered in a definitive way. There is no longer any doubt that reserving Holy Orders to males is part of the deposit of faith. While Catholics are not to question the teaching of the Magisterium on this matter, the time is ripe for all interested to come to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the Church's teaching.
The documents themselves are not meant to provide such theological information for us. Although they contain and allude to theological arguments, they are not primarily meant as theological documents. The situation is similar to the role of Humanae Vitae, the 1968 encyclical on the regulation of birth. As Janet Smith has aptly noted, that encyclical was not meant to provide a full philosophical and theological rationale for the Church's position. Rather, it alluded to some of the central arguments, presuming that philosophers and theologians would flush them out.1 Similarly, Inter Insigniores (issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Pope Paul VI in 1976), the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the Responsum ad Dubium exist not primarily as theological explanations, but as teaching documents making clear the Church's position, containing an implicit invitation to theologians to flush out the arguments. In this article I propose to present the argument from Sacred Tradition in favor of the male priesthood.
In considering that argument, we want to examine what Tradition says, the factual or empirical side of the question. This Tradition contains three aspects, as aptly summarized in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis no. 1 when it quotes a 1975 letter of Paul VI to the Archbishop of Canterbury: "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 [Magisterium] which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church." Let us consider each of the three points.
Peter Kreeft has a very convincing argument against priestesses. The hour long lecture is found at:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm
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
While I guess I'm thankful that this assumption is apparently rebutted in this piece, I can't but question it to begin with. Why would "casual Western onlookers" suppose it's "gender prejudice?" Why would this oracle (AP) be making such a statement? Why on earth would the Church be engaging in "simple gender prejudice?" Why is such an assertion even part of the debate at all? It's akin to making the remark, "you might assume that medical professionals go home and do experiments on their children, but actually...." -- it is such a riduculous attempt at fabricating context; it is certainly not the sort of remark you'd be hearing from a rational person. From a paranoid and delusional one, perhaps, but not a "casual Western" one.
There has never been a church that stayed faithful to Christ after they started ordaining women. Not one.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1440113/posts
"Churchmen on brink of exodus over women bishops"