Posted on 07/08/2008 7:44:22 AM PDT by NYer
(8 July 08 - RV) The Vatican Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity issued a Statement Tuesday regarding recent events within the Anglican Communion.
The Council is headed by Cardinal Walter Kasper. The statement reads:
“We have regretfully learned of the Church of England vote to pave the way for the introduction of legislation which will lead to the ordaining of women to the Episcopacy.
The Catholic position on the issue was clearly expressed by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. Such a decision signifies a breaking away from the apostolic tradition maintained by all of the Churches since the first millennium, and therefore is a further obstacle for the reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Church of England.
This decision will have consequences on the future of dialogue, which had up until now born fruit, as Cardinal Kasper had clearly explained when he spoke on June 5 2006 to all of the bishops of the Church of England at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Cardinal has been invited once again to express the Catholic position at the next Lambeth Conference at the end of July”.
This week the Church of England's ruling General Synod voted to consecrate women as bishops and approved a code of practice.
The synod members voted to approve work on a national statutory code to accommodate those within the Church who object to women bishops.
The synod rejected compromise proposals for new "super bishops" to cater for objectors - and also their preferred option of creating new dioceses.
The decision to go ahead with work on the code came after more than six hours of debate by the General Synod.
Some 1,300 clergy had threatened to leave the Church if safeguards were not agreed to reassure objectors.
Good for you. To what church do you belong?
Is it possible to just post the links as separate threads and I'll ping them.
Interesting times we are living in and the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI keeps getting more and more interesting every day.
As the Italians say - Cent' Anni! - may he live to be 100!
This was not the case when these “rules” were written (by men and for men)a thousand years ago.
But these “rules” were not “written by men”
They were written by God
Raised Catholic, but hesitant to raise my two adopted daughters in what feels like such an “antiquated” religion. They obviously do a great deal of good, but I’d like to see them modernize (allow Priests/Nuns to marry, embrace more modern family planning methods, pound on polititions and governments that subsidize abortion...etc).
Perhaps I’ll join the Angelicans! :)
The bad news for "the girls" is that they'll have no congregation! The Church of England has more chiefs than indians and is bleeding members rapidly. Numbers attending church are minuscule and still dropping. The "girls" will be having nothing more than a nice fancy dress party with close family.
The C of E is on a death watch and about to go to Davy Jones' locker. All sensible individuals are now heading for the lifeboats.
Now the Catholic Church needs to allow women in that role.
We can't dearie. Somebody has to look after all the new Anglican converts, don't they?. Also, maybe you missed this; Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, "On Preserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone". It's a done deal.
Probably the best course of action would be for the women priest advocates to hook up with the C of E before it implodes.
>>>>But these “rules” were not “written by men”
They were written by God>>>
No. They were written by men...interpreting for God...and therefore reflect the customs of the the day...1500 years ago. Only a few men could read or write...no women ...only men led everything...no women. No man 1500 years ago would have dreamed that women would be college educated equals in the year 2008!
So! We’re lucky! Now both sexes can give spiritual guidence and mentoring in a society that desperataly needs it!
>>>>>The “girls” will be having nothing more than a nice fancy dress party with close family.>>>>
>>>>We can’t dearie>>>>
Sad for you....you’re just seething with condecension for women....
It’s a new and better world than we had 1500 years ago when only men were allowed schooling. We need both Men and Women to help us and our children through the moral challanges that this and future years will present.
Right, but they are part of the same world Anglican body. Which is why some Episcopal churches is the US have put themselves under the direction of their African brothers, like Bishops in Rwanda, for instance are head of some Episopal churches here - Canterburry is none too happy about it - but that's a good thing.
Wow...so you get to decide to arbitrarily ignore pieces of scripture that you don’t agree with, huh? You might want to look up the name “Marcion”...
Au contraire. Women are the flowers of God's creation, who bear and raise our children, bring love to the home and without whom, life would simply cease. Here, read the beautiful things which Pope John Paul II said to women in this letter. It says it far better than I ever could.
My condescension is reserved for those who think the Church is simply an Oprah-like, self-affirmation group which is there do do our bidding.
It’s a new and better world than we had 1500 years ago when only men were allowed schooling. We need both Men and Women to help us and our children through the moral challanges that this and future years will present.
Indeed we do. That doesn't logically imply priesthood for women, though. Read what St. Paul says about the Mystical Body of Christ. Not all are prophets, not all are teachers........each has his or her own role in the building up of the Church. Men have a role as do women. True in the family and true in the Church. Our roles are complementary
Anyway, don't take my word for it. Pull up a chair, sit back and watch as the women-ordaining, homosexual-blessing Anglican Church splinters even further, shrivels and then vanishes.
(Of course, being Catholic, I draw the line at Orangemen in any event.)
For Catholics, your statement, Happy, is as much an ecclesiological statement as one about equity. You are suggesting that 1,000, 1,500, or almost 2,000 years ago God decided to abandon the Church to a systemic unfairness which only now "in these latter days" He has finally seen fit to address.
I'm not making this comment as an argument against what you are saying, but rather to sort of lay out some of the different attitudes one can have toward what might seem to be a simple issue of "gender equity".
Also, for us, while goodness, kindness, and the 10 commandments ought to be integral to the teaching of the Church, teaching is not the only thing the Church does, in our humble opinion.
We think that through the ordained ministry and especially through bishops and priests she actually serves as a conduit for Divine graces. Yes, it's outrageous, but it's what we think.
Those whose views and analyses of things are informed by dialectical materialism may tend to see the roles of missionary (apostle), supervisor (bishop), elder (priest), servant (deacon) primarily in terms of power and control. And certainly there are plenty of instances where authority has been degraded to mere power, and pastoral concern has been reduced to mere control.
But to see the structure of the Church and of Holy Orders in merely economic or political terms is to miss what is truly there.
It's sort of like what I am told Kant said of marriage: that it was a contract for the mutual abuse of bodies. To which we can only say, "Well, yeah, sort of, I kind of see what you mean ...." But the idea of matrimony as a conduit of grace and a school of Charity is totally missing from that superficial account.
Further, to think that we humans, in our present state, personally and culturally, know all we need to know about sex and gender is, I think, ludicrous! We are mysteries to ourselves, to members of our own sex, and certainly to those of the extreme opposite sex.
Look around you, for crying out loud! 80 years ago, when artificial birth control was finally finding approval in our culture, the old fuddy-duddies were saying, "It will lead to the approval of homosexuality, "and they were mocked. 30 years ago, as the Episcopalians were approaching the approval of the ordination of women, the old fuddy-duddies were saying, "It will lead to the approval of homosexuality, "and they were mocked.
Then it turned out that among the women seeking ordination were lesbians, and among the bishops agitating for the ordination of women were practicing homosexuals. And within a few short years, we got, well, Vicky Gene! And a man who frankly trashed his marriage vows and left his wife and daughters in search of a homosexual love was touted to us all as "a WONDERFUL pastor." His later startled discovery that he suffered from alcoholism as well as perversion has not seemed to have any effect whatsoever on his reputation as a wise, wonderful, and holy man.
And think of his daughters, like the daughter of the ate Bishop Paul Moore of New York, proponent of female and homosexual ordination and active homosexual adulterer. "Well, yes, Daddy did leave us, did cheat on Mommy, did prefer sexual gratification before his duty to his children, and sometimes we missed him terribly, but he is, after all, a VERY holy man."
All through this, who has paid? Who ALWAYS pays? The children. Molech is a hungry God who may count himself blessed in his worshippers, eager as they are to sacrifice their children to fulfill their desires.
As the acceptance of homosexuality, divorce, artificial birth-control, and "keeping house" without matrimony has risen, so has the rate of illegitimacy and the commoditization of children generally.
Now that children are a "life-style choice", selective abortion is being practised and perfectly healthy children murdered because they are the "wrong" sex.
Yes, yes, I know this LOOKS like "post hoc ergo propter hoc." But when a lesbian "priest" in the Episcopal Church decides to get herself artificially inseminated with a kind of vile soup made from mixing semen donated by three different men so that it won't be clear who the resulting child's father is,
that is, when an allegedly Christian minister purposefully sets out to have an orphan,
when any kind of a Christian puts herself in a situation such that if her child should ever ask, "Why don't I have a father like the other children do?" the only answer would be, "Because I didn't WANT you to have a father!" and when the so-called "Church" tolerates that selfish cruelty,
then I think we have all the proof we need that we do not understand sex and gender and that we force the innocent and helpless to pay for our proud experimentation.
It may seem archaic. It may seem something an old fuddy-duddy would say. But it is just possible that the Lord whose followers included women, whose Resurrection was first reported by woman, and whose Holy Mother was with the apostles at the first Pentecost of the new covenant ... it is just possible that He made apostles of men only for reasons other and more profound than power politics.
>>>>>Wow...so you get to decide to arbitrarily ignore pieces of scripture that you don’t agree with, huh? You might want to look up the name “Marcion”...>>>>
Silly response to a valid discussion of the changes in our world in the last 1500 years.
I’m sure God will welcome anyone and everyone that would like to preach His scripture and be a moral compass in complex society. You can call them “ministers” or “priests” or “pastors” or bishops” or whatever you like....but without question, God will welcome all men and women in this role.
Men make rules to exclude others....God is all inclusive.
You keep repeating 1500 years ago like it is relevant to something.
Well, we "seething with condescension" lay Dominicans think that women have been doing that for a mighty long time, and we hold in especial esteem Catherine of Siena who gave right much mentoring and spiritual guidance to the Pope, among others. She died in 1380, I think.
Excellent!
Serious question - did you welcome the Oprah episode where the pregnant “man” was able to have a child, or did you see some weird crossing of natural sexual roles?
Gotta love the Angelicans!
*****************
Heh. Me, too.
The rest of your post? I completely agree. Men and women are so different, to deny those differences is a form of mental illness, imho. Rather, let us accept and love those differences, and thank God for giving us all that He has. As time goes on, I realize more and more that God has made us as we are because He loves us, and wants us to be happy.
That includes accepting the role He has chosen for us.
LOL! No kidding. :)
>>>>Serious question - did you welcome the Oprah episode where the pregnant “man” was able to have a child, or did you see some weird crossing of natural sexual roles?>>>
You apparently can’t have or maintain an intellectual discussion of the cultural, educational, role changes that have taken place in the last 1500 or so years...and feel free to deginerate into this kind of nonsense.
Sad for you. It reflects on you...not on me.
Have a good day.
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.